Request for judicial review of Grimalkin’s actions
I request a full judicial review of the actions and conduct of chief Justice Grimalkin in the Jal Trial. Naturally I request that Grimalkin recuse himself from this process.
I Would request the court’s opinion and ruling concerning the legality and proportionality of Grimalkin’s decision to remove JAL from the regional assembly.
I would request of the court a statement supporting Grimalkin’s conduct concerning the trial.
I do this in light of the seriousness of the penalty handed out to JAL on 23 March 2012 in the JAL trial 2 thread, and incidents surrounding the trial on irc.
><><><><><><><><><><><><
In regard to the decision of Grimalkin to strip JAl of his Regional Assembly membership (his words, not mine):
Grimalkin has issued the following judicial ruling with regard to John Ashcroft Land:
The exact wording of his ruling here is important. JAL’s membership was not suspended, pending his appearance at the trial hearings. It was “stripped”. He was totally removed from the RA. This is an unconstitutional act for the following reason:
First: The Bill of Rights protects nations from “disproportionate” punishment.
I would ask the court (rather than the chief justice acting unilaterally) to rule whether removal of a nation from the RA is a proportionate punishment for refusal (please remember, after six months of cooperation) to participate in a trial.
Second, the Legal code is very clear and specific about the reasons why and how a RA member can be removed from the Regional Assembly:
JAL has, at present, been found guilty of no crime. Strangely, in our laws, participation in a trial is not mandatory, and refusal to participate is not a crime. Neither, oddly, is contempt of court. Now this may be an anomaly that the RA will wish to rectify, but as the law stands, JAL has not been found guilty by due process of any crime outlined in the Consitution and laws.
JAL is not guilty of this one either.
These are the only outlined reasons why a RA member may be “stripped” of their membership. Grimalkin acted illegally in stripping JAL of his RA membership.
I would also remind everyone that this punishment was inflicted on JAL without any due process or hearing. He was not accused of contempt: he was simply punished for it. All citizens in TNP have a right to due process: (article 7)
I contend that nothing in the Bill fo Rights or Constitution gives Grimalkin the right to impose punishment in this manner, and particularly punishment of this severity, and that is why I am requesting a judicial review.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Turning to the second issue: the conduct of the Chief Justice during the JAL trial.
I believe that even a casual perusal of the end of the first JAL trial, as well as a glance at IRC logs around that time, shows that Grimalkin’s handling of the end of the second JAL hearing was incompetent: he gave the prosecution a deadline that he then failed to honour, he issued a verdict, then went back on the verdict (in what is now known as the infamous “clockgate” incident).
However, incompetence alone may not be a reason for recall. In TNP (and indeed in the JAL trial) we have had more than our fair share of incompetents, and the court may argue that one more makes no difference.
But I also accuse Grimalkin of malpractice and conduct unbecoming to his office in that on 15th March he repeatedly urged me to commit contempt of court – in fact, he goaded me into it with the clear desire that he might have an excuse to punish me for contempt of court, as he had already threatened:
It is reasonable that a Chief Justice administer our laws. It is not reasonable that they incite a member of the Regional Assembly to break those laws so that they can be punished.
In the light of subsequent events, I am glad that I responded to his goading with humour. Otherwise my punishment too might have been equally severe to that inflicted on JAL.
Your honours, I am currently deciding whether to bring a motion of recall to the regional assembly. A statement of your support for Grimalkin’s actions would persuade me that such recourse is not needed. Of course if you cannot make such a statement … well, I think we can all read between the lines of that one.
As a token of the impartiality and fairness of the court, I would also ask the Justices to issue a temporary order restoring JAL's RA membership until the legality of his "stripping" can be determined. We all know how slowly TNP law can work, and JAL has already been permitted by the court to the RA. Should you decide that Grimalkin’s action was proportionate and constitutional -he can always be removed from the RA again.
I request a full judicial review of the actions and conduct of chief Justice Grimalkin in the Jal Trial. Naturally I request that Grimalkin recuse himself from this process.
I Would request the court’s opinion and ruling concerning the legality and proportionality of Grimalkin’s decision to remove JAL from the regional assembly.
I would request of the court a statement supporting Grimalkin’s conduct concerning the trial.
I do this in light of the seriousness of the penalty handed out to JAL on 23 March 2012 in the JAL trial 2 thread, and incidents surrounding the trial on irc.
><><><><><><><><><><><><
In regard to the decision of Grimalkin to strip JAl of his Regional Assembly membership (his words, not mine):
Grimalkin has issued the following judicial ruling with regard to John Ashcroft Land:
The exact wording of his ruling here is important. JAL’s membership was not suspended, pending his appearance at the trial hearings. It was “stripped”. He was totally removed from the RA. This is an unconstitutional act for the following reason:
First: The Bill of Rights protects nations from “disproportionate” punishment.
I would ask the court (rather than the chief justice acting unilaterally) to rule whether removal of a nation from the RA is a proportionate punishment for refusal (please remember, after six months of cooperation) to participate in a trial.
Second, the Legal code is very clear and specific about the reasons why and how a RA member can be removed from the Regional Assembly:
JAL has, at present, been found guilty of no crime. Strangely, in our laws, participation in a trial is not mandatory, and refusal to participate is not a crime. Neither, oddly, is contempt of court. Now this may be an anomaly that the RA will wish to rectify, but as the law stands, JAL has not been found guilty by due process of any crime outlined in the Consitution and laws.
JAL is not guilty of this one either.
These are the only outlined reasons why a RA member may be “stripped” of their membership. Grimalkin acted illegally in stripping JAL of his RA membership.
I would also remind everyone that this punishment was inflicted on JAL without any due process or hearing. He was not accused of contempt: he was simply punished for it. All citizens in TNP have a right to due process: (article 7)
I contend that nothing in the Bill fo Rights or Constitution gives Grimalkin the right to impose punishment in this manner, and particularly punishment of this severity, and that is why I am requesting a judicial review.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Turning to the second issue: the conduct of the Chief Justice during the JAL trial.
I believe that even a casual perusal of the end of the first JAL trial, as well as a glance at IRC logs around that time, shows that Grimalkin’s handling of the end of the second JAL hearing was incompetent: he gave the prosecution a deadline that he then failed to honour, he issued a verdict, then went back on the verdict (in what is now known as the infamous “clockgate” incident).
However, incompetence alone may not be a reason for recall. In TNP (and indeed in the JAL trial) we have had more than our fair share of incompetents, and the court may argue that one more makes no difference.
But I also accuse Grimalkin of malpractice and conduct unbecoming to his office in that on 15th March he repeatedly urged me to commit contempt of court – in fact, he goaded me into it with the clear desire that he might have an excuse to punish me for contempt of court, as he had already threatened:
It is reasonable that a Chief Justice administer our laws. It is not reasonable that they incite a member of the Regional Assembly to break those laws so that they can be punished.
In the light of subsequent events, I am glad that I responded to his goading with humour. Otherwise my punishment too might have been equally severe to that inflicted on JAL.
Your honours, I am currently deciding whether to bring a motion of recall to the regional assembly. A statement of your support for Grimalkin’s actions would persuade me that such recourse is not needed. Of course if you cannot make such a statement … well, I think we can all read between the lines of that one.
As a token of the impartiality and fairness of the court, I would also ask the Justices to issue a temporary order restoring JAL's RA membership until the legality of his "stripping" can be determined. We all know how slowly TNP law can work, and JAL has already been permitted by the court to the RA. Should you decide that Grimalkin’s action was proportionate and constitutional -he can always be removed from the RA again.
