The Organic Law Party

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Goodness.

It goes without saying that there seems to have been some shameful behavior here.  Apparently some civic leaders thought that the Organic Law was illegally amended on a broad scale, and decided to say nothing.  It is possible that this stuff was taken out of context, but the screenshot shared seems to show a pretty damning conversation where Dama Miestra and Viteu discuss the possibility and plan how to address it without stirring any scrutiny.

Maybe there's more context here?  It's possible the very next page of the conversation has Dama Miestra saying that she's sure that everything is on the up-and-up.  I hope so.

This is all the worse because I'm genuinely unsure what the answer is, here.  Usually you don't count abstentions against a 2/3 requirement's denominator, since an abstention is treated the same as not voting (even though it functionally indicates your presence at the vote).  But that's not the case if the requirement is something like 2/3 of "all voters present" or "all members at the vote," which does count increase the denominator.  And the language here is "two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum on the question of the amendment."  It seems to indicate it's talking about all who voted in whatever way, but also an abstention is considered not to be participating in a vote!  And I'm not sure there's any precedent either way with this specific language.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Incidentally, while this is a pretty dire look into the ethics of some folks, and an interesting legal question, I don't think there's any practical concern here.  Someone should just hopper something to re-affirm the OrgLaw as it stands and irrespective of other amendments, just in case.  Unless someone files a suit to overturn stuff based on this revelation, I don't think the OrgLaw's going to get overturned.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

the screenshot shared seems to show a pretty damning conversation where Dama Miestra and Viteu discuss the possibility and plan how to address it without stirring any scrutiny.

There was no conversation. Judge V posted that on his Facebook page, after he had already quit the Free Democrats. He had never discussed the issue with me, or anyone I have ever heard of, before. I did not reply but simply reposted it to the Free Democrats group so they knew of his current state of mind.

I'm really fed up, Alex, about how you can't read or hear of anything involving me without leaping to the conclusion that I've done something corrupt and wicked.

I guess I'm very confused, then.  The screenshot Viteu posted looks like a back-and-forth conversation from Messenger. 

He messages someone -- I thought it was you, but you're not mentioned by name, so maybe it's someone else? -- to tell them he thinks the OrgLaw amendment didn't pass.  Since it amended the Covenants, it required the higher threshold to pass, and Viteu thinks it didn't make it.  The other person disagrees with Viteu.  They discuss how it would be hard to pass a completely new OrgLaw.  Then they say that the best way to handle the situation is just to address the accidental Convenant change by itself.

It's not the worse thing in the world, but it definitely doesn't look good.  But on the other hand, you're being very forceful in your denial, so now I don't know what to think.

[Viteu]

It was Miestra.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

But if you thought the OrgLaw didn't pass, why haven't you said anything for all of this time?  You're a judge and an officer of the cort.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I guess I'm very confused, then.  The screenshot V posted looks like a back-and-forth conversation from Messenger.

I just found what you're referring to. That conversation happened in January 2021, more than two years ago, and I had utterly forgotten about it. I read that as V raising a possible legalistic point, me saying "interesting if true", and telling him to pursue it if he found it interesting. Please inform me how this is a scandal on me.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I guess I'm very confused, then.  The screenshot V posted looks like a back-and-forth conversation from Messenger.

I just found what you're referring to. That conversation happened in January 2021, more than two years ago, and I had utterly forgotten about it. I read that as V raising a possible legalistic point, me saying "interesting if true", and telling him to pursue it if he found it interesting. Please inform me how this is a scandal on me.

Well, the last exchange has you directing Viteu to propose fixing the Covenant issue, but not to say anything about the amendment vote publicly.  It's not a huge scandal, and it's way more damning for Viteu himself, but this doesn't look great.

However, this looks like it could be really out of context.  I can easily imagine more to this conversation that completely exonerates you -- the very next words you typed might have been, "I'm sure the bill passed, so there's nothing to talk about."

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I guess I'm very confused, then.  The screenshot V posted looks like a back-and-forth conversation from Messenger.

I just found what you're referring to. That conversation happened in January 2021, more than two years ago, and I had utterly forgotten about it. I read that as V raising a possible legalistic point, me saying "interesting if true", and telling him to pursue it if he found it interesting. Please inform me how this is a scandal on me.

Well, the last exchange has you directing Viteu to propose fixing the Covenant issue, but not to say anything about the amendment vote publicly.  It's not a huge scandal, and it's way more damning for Viteu himself, but this doesn't look great.

However, this looks like it could be really out of context.  I can easily imagine more to this conversation that completely exonerates you -- the very next words you typed might have been, "I'm sure the bill passed, so there's nothing to talk about."

"Exonerates me". Hmmm. As if I were accused of... what, exactly?

I checked my records and that's the whole conversation at that date. I think I'm pretty clear in saying that IMHO "abstentions don't count, the referendum passed". That's why I say to V, "leave out the bit about the referendum" - because I thought he was really reaching, but you know what V's like, I didn't want to argue! And the Fifth Covenant issue was, in fact, recognized by the Ziu repaired by 55RZ23.

Are you seriously making an claim that I was *agreeing* with V that the 2/3 majority wasn't achieved, and that I was telling him to keep it quiet, so that I - in cahoots with V - could overthrow the Organic Law at a time of my choosing? Are you even arguing that that's a good faith reading of this conversation?!?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

No?  I didn't say that.  I said it looks pretty damning since he said he thought it didn't pass, and you said he shouldn't mention that but should just try to fix the Covenant issue.  It sounds plausible you thought he was just wrong and wanted to move him past the issue.  It would be nice if there was more context, but if wishes were fishes, there'd be no room for water.  So I'd be inclined to believe you, given this explanation.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It sounds plausible you thought he was just wrong and wanted to move him past the issue.

I would have thought the bit where I say, categorically, "abstentions don't count when calculating majorities" and V says that's not how he reads it, but "okay", was past "plausible" and into the realms of "blatantly obvious".

I'm interested to hear more about this apparent ethical precept that, if I hear a wild legal theory in a private conversation which I don't agree with, I am obliged to bring that legal theory to public attention. As the recent debates featuring Party President Tärfa have shown, it's generally a waste of time and attention to try to talk Justice V out of his wilder legal theories.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Lol, the distraction thing... I almost fell for that one again!

Everyone can read the excerpt and come to their own conclusions, so I'll leave it be.  Have a good evening.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Hello, I just had my morning coffee.
This is getting ridiculous.

I just read that in the last hour a sitting Judge of the CpI stormed a courthouse, bullied and threatened a sitting Judge of the Tribunal on the verge of sentencing, threatened a Public Defender, founded a Political Party to "defend" the OrgLaw (the same OrgLaw he's ditching), posted private conversations with a citizen without permission, threatened more and more, de facto, the Ziu, and now announced to the world that our own constitution that came into force 3 years ago is a joke.

For what is worth, all I can see in that private conversation improperly shared now as a sort of trophy is a sitting Judge of the CpI believing - and who still believes now by its own admission - that the Organic Law he should judge upon is a joke, and that for three years this Country allegedly run on a piece of paper without any legal value. I'd like at this point to read what he testified in the Senäts Committee on this matter.

I dearly miss the time when our Judiciary was not bullying, storming, possibly breaking the laws and threatening the citizens and the institutions he might be asked to judge upon sometimes.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Oooh, another satirical party. Nice!

If you say so.

Yeah to be honest when I posted that I thought I was being funny, but looking back, I wasnt really. Not the right place or time to be trolling. Sorry.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Also, not because I should, but just because sometimes I cant help myself: a friendly word of advise to Baron AD: we're all humans here, and we're building a community. Regardless of the merits of your concerns, maybe try to avoid going straight for the jugular.

Maybe my impression is completely wrong, because I havent really followed politics lately, but I had the idea that maybe you and Miestră were being a bit nicer or more respectful towards each other recently. If that was the case (or even if it wasnt) then please dont ruin that.

Thats the last thing Ill say about it though, because Id much prefer to leave the politics to the politicians and discuss cycling or music instead.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Whilst I can in a way, understand why AD is concerned, and aside from the inappropriateness of a member of the Judiciary to be so openly political without renouncing their seat on the Cort.
There is a glaring question, Miestra gave Viteu the go ahead to investigate and bring the matter to the Ziu at the time, in the way she thought was best at the time, if Viteu thought that is was such an oversight that he needed to raise it privately, why when he was given that go ahead, did Viteu apparently decide to not pursue the matter publicly, at the time? As that would have been the time to do so, not now when he is throwing a temper tantrum after a reasonable disagreement (at first) and blowing it up way out of proportion.