Your honour, I am sure that Blue Wolf will wish to speak on his own behalf. I speak tonight as one empowered to speak on his behalf, as one who precipitated this hearing by urging him to drop charges against JAL and perhaps more importantly as one who has been a part of this region since 2003 and who understands not only the words of the constitution but, perhaps more importantly, the intent behind it and in the thinking of those who drew up the current constitution and the others that came before it.
TNP’s constitution is a complex structure of checks and balances. It was designed, in the main, to prevent abuse of power by the delegate by limiting his powers in certain areas. As such it depends on two things: the first is the cooperation and goodwill of the delegate, the second is the power of high influence old guard nations to quickly rein in any delegate who over exceeds his authority: “going rogue” as we call it.
Now Eluvatar has presented the actions of the delegate on 26 January as a gross overstepping of his authority. Using his emotive language he has spoken of it as “surrender” and as “petering out” He has cited clauses of the constitution to support his argument.
However, It is our contention that this was not an abnormal action in a normal state of affairs. It was a necessary act in a very abnormal situation. Our entire judiciary had either resigned or gone AWOL. Eluvatar was, whatever his protestations, functionally inactive. He posted only often enough to keep the trial treading water without progressing. He was largely absent from the region, even neglecting his admin duties – to the frustration of Gross. The JAL trial had dragged on for six months, and had ground to a halt, to the embarrassment of the region.
In such a situation, action was necessary. Almost everyone seems to be of the opinion that “something needed to be done.” The question is – was Blue Wolf’s action legal, and was it the right action to take?
On the first question: The legality of Blue Wolf’s action. I would like to make the following points:
it was not an act without precedent
Eluvatar seems to occupy a strange world where TNP did not exist before the adoption of the current constitution and nothing that happened prior to the current constitution counts. But those of us with longer memories can recall many occasions when delegates have done what was necessary and acted when other officials were absent or inactive. I did so at least once during my first term as delegate. Those of us who have acted in that way have done so to collective applause. Generally before we have done so we have listened to the will of the region.
Did Blue Wolf listen to the region? That brings me to my second point:
The delegate did not act without advice.
The petition for the delegate to drop charges was supported by many who have held high office in this region: Cakatoa supported it. Former Chief Justice Falconcats Supported it. Cabinet member New Kervoskia supported it. Court Justice Grimalkin supported it. Vice Delegate Pasargad supported it in principle. Former justice Govindia and even Eluvatar himself supported a mistrial being declared. A Mean old Man ventured the opinion that the whole trial was a non-starter from the beginning.
But even with consultation a delegate can still break the law. Did Blue Wolf? This brings me to my third point:
Blue Wolf’s was not an unconstitutional act
The Constitution is not a clear document. It seems that the longer a legal framework the more self-contradictions and holes it contains. As an aside, I much prefer the British system of using precedent and case law rather than a written constitution for this very reason.
However, the constitution does grant any citizen the right to petition the delegate for redress of grievance. Implicit in that is the assumption that the delegate has the power to answer that petition. Felasia has made the point that petition ought to have been made to the Chief Justice. However, at the time of petition there was no Chief Justice – heck, there was no justice department at all. The defence might have been patient and waited for elections to take place, but after so many months of stupidity, our patience was exhausted. We appealed to the only man left standing.
I have my doubts about Blue Wolf as delegate. That should surprise nobody. However, it is my opinion that in this instance he acted with true leadership, legally, and in the best interests of the Region. He ended an embarrassment for us all, and deserves our thanks for doing so.
I believe the first point is made. Blue Wolf acted not only within the constitution but also within the best interests of the region. He also acted in the tradition of previous delegates of TNP.
The second main point I would like to make is that the decision he came to when nobody else would make the call was the right decision to make:
it was the right decision
Eluvatar has presented the delegate’s actions on 26th January as a disaster and as a threat to the very fabric of the region. He has presented it as a threat to the independence of the judiciary. In fact the real threat to the Judiciary came from the actions and attitude of successive justices and from the attitude of Eluvatar himself – as I will come to in a moment.
Blue Wolf came to a decision that was legal and constitutional. I will not rehash the arguments here, but I would urge the justices to look again at the petition presented to Blue Wolf.
HERE
Even should you decide to overturn the decision made on 26th January by Blue Wolf, I would urge you not to consider resuming or even worse restarting action against John Ashcroft Land.
Before I close, I would like to make one last point. In an impassioned statement Eluvatar has highlighted what he sees as Blue Wolf’s threat against the constitution of the region. I have stated that the real threat has come from the Justice department. The incompetence and inactivity of successive justices has been the real problem. But so has the actions of Eluvatar:
Frankly, it should be Eluvatar whose actions are under review, not the delegate’s.
Much of the clusterfuck of this trial has been down to Eluvatar’s conduct during it. Throughout the trial he has presented little evidence (other than quoting swathes of the constitution, has called no witnesses and presented a half-hearted case. Yet he stubbornly refused to hand over conduct of the case to his successor as Attorney General – much to the frustration of all concerned.
In doing this, he was within his rights, but well beyond the intent of those who framed the constitution. His right is based on the following clause:
3.2) It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting.
However, this was intended for the speedy and fair resolution of matters outstanding at the time of handover. It was never intended that an Attorney General use this clause to extend his six month term by a further entire term. Although Eluvatar was very keen to uphold his rights under this clause, he was less keen to abide by the following clauses:
2,2) The Attorney General is to work within the rules adopted by the Court.
I could go into more detail should this hearing wish, but at no point in the trial did Eluvatar work within the rules of procedure established by the Regional Assembly on 20th October 2010. Much of the blame for this lays at the feet of the myriad justices who presided over the trial, but this is also a duty of the Attorney General, as shown.
2.3 The Attorney General shall serve for six months.
I believe this to be self-explanatory. A short extension to conclude business is understandable. To extend by a whole term is inexcusable.
I urge you to uphold Blue Wolf’s actions and to find in his favour in this hearing.
