Motion to Recall Romanoffia

Kiwi:
flemingovia:
Blue Wolf II:
Grosseschnauzer:
What's the point of a recall when judicial elections are a month away?
Click to expand...
What's the point of recalling anyone, then, when elections are just a few months away from the last election? :P
Click to expand...
Wolf is correct. We are always close to an election, and recalls tend to get talked out so they lose steam.

Since this thread has gone completely off-topic, can I suggest we go to a vote and discussions about future court procedure be split elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Flem and I don't agree on a whole bunch but I can't help but agree with his point here. There is a whole bunch of discussions here clouding the issue at hand.

Roman - I'm really sad that this is how you've chosen to see this through. Up until now I have been incredibly pleased with what you have brought to the bench.

As far as extra rules go, mid trial the appropriate response is for the CJ to use his/her discretion, period. If the RA don't like that then they can bring about reform later on as they have done many, many times when they don't like what comes from the Court.

I really don't mean to offend anyone in saying this but Roman I feel as if you could have done almost ANYTHING in that trial thread and no one would have judged you as harshly as for you dismissing the case. Particularly when you tried to do so *with prejudice* which was even more out of the blue.

As for a recall, if this is really the only way of finally seeing this case properly dealt with, by all means.
Click to expand...
I have already corrected and re-issued the dismissal to remove the 'with prejudice' phrasing.

The problem is here that no matter what I did, there is a certain class of people who want to make hay of this and would have done so not matter what I did. Therefore, this class of people of which I speak would have called for a recall no matter what. So, why not oblige them to call for a recall?

The only thing that a recall vote accomplishes is to send a message to Justices on The Court that if they make any decision, no matter how legally valid, that goes against mob-rule opinion, they will be subject to a recall.

And this entire recall sets the precedent that the Judiciary is no longer independent of public opinion or political considerations if Judges who make lawful decision can be removed for doing so.

I have not chose this path, the originator of this thread chose the path. I have no choice in the matter.

Again, if the people of this region want to set a precedent that abolishes the independence of the judicial branch by subjecting justices to public opinion and political pressure as a primary concern (and not delivering justice), then I say let the people have exactly what they want. The only way some people are convinced to not do stupid things is to let them do stupid things and reap the rewards.

That said, a successful recall of a justice under these situations will create an immediate constitutional crisis involving separation of powers and the independence of the Judiciary. And when someone exploits that precedent, judges will be recalled if anyone suspects that the judge will issue or has issued any unpopular decision.

So, I say, have at it. I will not resign. If enough people want to recall me, then they get the precedent they deserve and it won't be pretty because the Court will just be a tool of public opinion and political pressure from that point hence.
 
Recalling a justice for poor conduct inside and outside the courtroom endangers neither the independence of the judiciary, nor separation of powers. If Roman was being recalled because the RA wanted JAL to be convicted, then that might be a bit of a problem, but I personally don't think that would happen - after all, justices (including Roman) have made decisions less popular than this in the recent past, and there were no recall attempts then.

What this comes down to is the fact that after Roman made some serious missteps in his management of TNP v JAL, he then tried to illegally alter the process for review requests to prevent his actions from coming under legal review.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Recalling a justice for poor conduct inside and outside the courtroom endangers neither the independence of the judiciary, nor separation of powers. If Roman was being recalled because the RA wanted JAL to be convicted, then that might be a bit of a problem, but I personally don't think that would happen - after all, justices (including Roman) have made decisions less popular than this in the recent past, and there were no recall attempts then.

What this comes down to is the fact that after Roman made some serious missteps in his management of TNP v JAL, he then tried to illegally alter the process for review requests to prevent his actions from coming under legal review.
Click to expand...
Oh, pooh.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA concerning the pressure I was under to assure JAL's conviction even unto recalling a Justice who had no interests other than seeing that JAL got a fair trial.

You people have been trying to nail JAL to the wall for so long that it has become a perennial cause amongst certain individuals. Of course, none of those individuals have the balls to openly admit that fact.

The fact of the matter is that some of you are so pissed off that no matter what you try, you can't nail JAL for anything precisely because if the defects in the legal system. And when you don't get the results you want from the Court, you swim around like a bunch of sharks looking for blood in the water.

I, for one, am not willing to go along with the public opinion crows that seeks only to crucify someone despite the fact that the Laws can be gamed by clever people.

What some of you are really looking for is a set of Justices who will do whatever someone tells them to do, a bunch of puppets for a vociferous minority who wants drum-head justice instead of real justice in applying the laws.

If that's what the mob wants, then that's what the mob is about to get depending upon their decisions in this matter. And that's what the mob deserves.

But if you follow this path, then those who support it are worse than any rogue or usurper has inflicted on this region in the past precisely because they are doing it to themselves.

Specifically:

What this comes down to is the fact that after Roman made some serious missteps in his management of TNP v JAL, he then tried to illegally alter the process for review requests to prevent his actions from coming under legal review.
Click to expand...

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, then bugger me.

You have done exactly the same thing in the past, especially in TNP v. Gross in detail and now you want my head for doing exactly what you did or tried to do?

Albeit, the CJ is allowed to create rules on the fly where no such rules exist, and you, COE, have done exactly the same in your capacity as a Justice. But now it's different because it wasn't you who did it and it doesn't serve your agenda.

So, do what you want to do, but don't blame me when it all blows up in everyone's collective face, which I assure you it will.

I had you stick your nose into a trial I was presiding over and you got slapped back on it. You want your personal retribution, then have at it.

Remember, you are as guilty of what you accuse me of doing as anyone who has ever sat upon the court could ever be.

I have done nothing intentionally to prevent my actions from coming under legal review. In fact, after being corrected I bent over backwards to rectify the situation.

So, Mr. Jesus Christ COE whose determinations must not be questioned, jump off the bandwagon and think about what you claim before you claim it.

Will not resign, and you will have to successfully recall me if you want me off the bench.

I may not win the battle, but I assure you I will win the war.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
I have done nothing intentionally to prevent my actions from coming under legal review. In fact, after being corrected I bent over backwards to rectify the situation.
Click to expand...
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8142172&t=7197433
Click to expand...
Completely legitimate under exactly the same rules you used to try to usurp TNP v. Grosseschnauzer from my presidency.

And, so, what's your point? That you can accuse and harass Ol' Romies for doing exactly something what you have done before?

As I recall from personal experience, you acted in a manner beholding of somewhat of a tyrant during your term as CJ. I did not tolerate being dictated to you then, I will not do so now.

COE, you can fool some of the people some of the time, most of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I suggest you take another line of attack if you want to get my dander up. :P
 
As chief justice, I assigned and removed moderating justices at will, because there were no rules on how or when moderating justices were assigned or removed. That is within the power of the CJ to do.

But there's a big difference between making new rules where none exist, and doing what you tried to do: alter existing rules and/or create exceptions to them.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
As chief justice, I assigned and removed moderating justices at will, because there were no rules on how or when moderating justices were assigned or removed. That is within the power of the CJ to do.

But there's a big difference between making new rules where none exist, and doing what you tried to do: alter existing rules and/or create exceptions to them.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, there is no difference -

You removed justices as presiding justices at will - and got shot down in the process, I might add.

I did exactly what you did - I created the rules as needed when such rules didn't exist.

To Wit:

Where in the rules does is specifically say a CJ can 'remove a presiding justice at will'?

You created rules on the fly multiple times, I did it once. Does that mean you are guilty of what you accuse me multiple times?

Pot calling the kettle black, you are (as Yoda would say). :P
 
Romanoffia:
I did exactly what you did - I created the rules as needed when such rules didn't exist.
Click to expand...
The rule you created was:
2. Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at his own discretion. Nations who have a request for review denied may petition the entire Court to overturn the individual Justice's decision and accept the review.
Click to expand...
That only applies to requests for reviews that do not pertain to ongoing cases or proceedings; it also does not apply to motions made in the course of trials.
Click to expand...
From: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8142180&t=7197444

That is clearly creating an exception to the rule that Mall quoted. The rule Mall quoted is the existing rule, and you were making an illegal exception to it. You can't create a rule "where none exists" when a rule exists...the one Mall quoted.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Recalling a justice for poor conduct inside and outside the courtroom endangers neither the independence of the judiciary, nor separation of powers. If Roman was being recalled because the RA wanted JAL to be convicted, then that might be a bit of a problem, but I personally don't think that would happen - after all, justices (including Roman) have made decisions less popular than this in the recent past, and there were no recall attempts then.
Click to expand...
I'd disagree with the last part of your sentence, my man.

But I think the point is, that even though recall attempts were made, they didn't pass. TNPers don't like to recall elected officials no matter how many vocal minorities may want to remove certain officials.
 
A recall is not mob rule. It is an important part of our democratic accountability. It is never something that is undertaken lightly.

This recall seems to me to be a no-brainer. Roman has not only scuppered a major trial, he has done so in a childish manner, and with such pique and churlishness that I was astonished. He has shown, and expressed, utter contempt for the judicial system, his own office, and his fellow justices. He is not fit to wear the robes.

Since he is not enough of a gentleman to resign, the proper response is recall. I doubt if enough of the RA will agree with me, but I think it is right to press on. Roman has shown himself to be a dickhead, and I do not want to see a dickhead as a Justice, let alone Chief Justice.
 
flemingovia:
Since he is not enough of a gentleman to resign, the proper response is recall. I doubt if enough of the RA will agree with me, but I think it is right to press on.
Click to expand...
As augur of the RA, I must disagree. I prognosticate that this will pass.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
flemingovia:
Since he is not enough of a gentleman to resign, the proper response is recall. I doubt if enough of the RA will agree with me, but I think it is right to press on.
Click to expand...
As augur of the RA, I must disagree. I prognosticate that this will pass.
Click to expand...
I motion for a vote on this proposal
 
flemingovia:
A recall is not mob rule. It is an important part of our democratic accountability. It is never something that is undertaken lightly.

This recall seems to me to be a no-brainer. Roman has not only scuppered a major trial, he has done so in a childish manner, and with such pique and churlishness that I was astonished. He has shown, and expressed, utter contempt for the judicial system, his own office, and his fellow justices. He is not fit to wear the robes.

Since he is not enough of a gentleman to resign, the proper response is recall. I doubt if enough of the RA will agree with me, but I think it is right to press on. Roman has shown himself to be a dickhead, and I do not want to see a dickhead as a Justice, let alone Chief Justice.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's a lovely and refined, gentleman like use of the English Language and oh, so decorous to be using words like "Dickhead" on the floor of the RA.

You should really consider a more appropriate choice of words instead to exposing to the world that you have been diagnosed with a case of Rectal-Cranial Inversion.

Head in Arse picture removed by Eluvatar.​


I trust you found the insect that is in there too?

Now, if I were a real dickhead as you content, I would put that image in my signature, but I have better things to do.
 
Romanoffia:
flemingovia:
Treize_Dreizehn:
Hasn't a vote already been scheduled for the 2nd?
Click to expand...
Thank you. I had not noticed the scheduled vote. only one more week, hopefully.
Click to expand...
Please cite the specific law which includes what the threshold vote is for a recall.
Click to expand...
I think that is really an issue for the Speaker to address, not me.

But for what it is worth the two options would seem to be a simple majority or a two thirds majority. I suspect, if there is nothing specified in our laws, that the speaker would apply the higher threshold.

EDIT: A quick search has determined that in the past such votes have required a two thirds supermajority to pass.
 
The threshold for a recall is a two-thirds majority, and is established by Article 2, clause 3 of the Constitution, which reads:
"3. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote."
and a Justice is a "government official" by virtue of Article 7, clauses 1 and 2, which read:
"1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council."
 
Okay, apologies for the delay, and this may be a little flaky as I'm running on sub an hours sleep and a nap right now, but I'm out of hospital so:

Roman:
That's not the problem.

The problem is that I was being trolled by the defence team and I did not have the moderation ability to control the problem due to some fault in masking.

I tried to gain the assistance of admin moderation and they refused.

As a result, no Justice at all would have been able to maintain order.

When you cannot maintain order in the Court Room because of the nature of the forum and the whole legal system.

Hence, the whole TNP legal system is a farce because you cannot conduct any kind of orderly trial if the Defence decides to go at it like a bunch of trolls.


And thus, I will not resign. You will have to recall me. And then when you do that and you get a repeat affair of the same thing, you can recall that Justice too. In fact, you can recall every Justice every time you disagree with a decision of the Court to compound the farce that the legal system is.

I will modify the dismissal to a simple dismissal and they any other Justice can take it up again, but there will have to be a new indictment with additional evidence.
Click to expand...

As Chief Justice, part of your role is to work with the legal system and figure out ways within your power to improve the legal system. This is by setting up Court Rules that reflect the rights of RA members, by conducting yourself in a manner which does not encourage trollish defence teams, and by working with the rest of the RA to produce laws and culture changes which will potentially improve matters. And it is bloody hard - I couldn't do it, nor could I cope, so I stepped down.

This is not a matter of disagreeing with a decision of the Court. I can understand the decision to dismiss at the stage that the trial had reached, restart and try again. That is fine, not that I approve of your conduct. I do not care whether JAL is convicted or not. I have absolutely no vested interest in that. I wasn't in the game for the first coup and I wasn't in TNP for the second. I do not care. This is about your conduct, and stuff as demonstrated from the final sentence of this post which says to me that you are not able to hold this role impartially and with a good knowledge of the rules and the laws.

Thus, to the last sentence: As demonstrated by other RA members in this thread, the final part of your last sentence is simply not true, no more evidence is required to be produced when a case is dismissed.

You demonstrate this again, and again, and again, throughout this thread and within the Courts. You don't need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the laws and rules - you simply need to look things up, and not assume you are correct.

I don't want someone to do my bidding. I want someone to conduct themselves properly. I want someone who will put the region, and the rights afforded to RA citizens, first, before losing their temper and their frustrations at the idiocies within TNP's legal systems.

Roman:
As it is right now, the Court is utterly powerless to actually enforce the laws in a meaningful fashion, especially if a convicted person can just create a new nation, a new board identity and then claim 'duality' to skirt the laws.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes it is. And I agree with you that there needs to be change. But that doesn't mean you should rip the laws up and throw them away and just do whatever you feel like doing, because the laws are still there and you have agreed to follow and abide and uphold them, complete with all the idiocies. Although I would argue that creating a new identity is a legally awkward and difficult situation that unless I've missed something in my reduced activity, isn't something that has been presented before the Court?

It was essentially used. Previous Justices have created rules on the fly where no such rules existed and without having to actually enter them as amendments to the actual rules - such as temporary rules specific to a hearing that are not applied automatically to other subsequent cases.
Click to expand...

There is a difference, as highlighted by others, between creating temporary rules on the fly in order to try and maintain order and deal with deficiencies in the ruleset because none of us really know what we're doing, and creating exceptions to rules which at the very least appear to be designed to allow you to avoid having your decisions reviewed by the full court


The only thing that a recall vote accomplishes is to send a message to Justices on The Court that if they make any decision, no matter how legally valid, that goes against mob-rule opinion, they will be subject to a recall.

And this entire recall sets the precedent that the Judiciary is no longer independent of public opinion or political considerations if Judges who make lawful decision can be removed for doing so.

I have not chose this path, the originator of this thread chose the path. I have no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

You really do have an issue of feeling like there is a problem with mob rule here, don't you?

Why don't I give you a little background as to my involvement with TNP, and what lead to me making the decision to propose this recall vote:

I have been stepped back for RL and Medical reasons, and still am for the most part, and only mentioned my intention to propose this recall vote to one person before I actually posted it. It was a decision I made wholly on my own and did not intend on producing some sort of mob rule situation. I have been CJ. I have felt the pressure. It is godawful, and you can never win. But you never ever tear up the rulebook and just do whatever the hell you like because that is just not on.

I disagree that you are a Justice who has made lawful decisions, and lawful moves. I think that several of your actions have been at best legally questionable. But, if nothing else, it's not about making unpopular rulings; dear god, I've made enough of those. Read back through the Court archives, see some of the spectacular blowups after some of the rulings I wrote/was involved in. And while I hated the nature of the pressure, pressure to some degree is part of being a Justice - you have to remain accountable to the region. If you cannot justify your decisions, with law and precedent to back you up, to a questioning RA then you have to ask yourself whether you have made the right choice in your ruling, and that is the point.

It is the attitude of hating the Courts, hating the laws, and thus just making it up as you go along that concerns me. That's not "disagreeing with the mob rule". That's expressing opinions and taking actions that are wholly inappropriate for a justice to take.

The Judicial branch is independent. It is not invincible and untouchable.

Posts like http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8143062&t=7197753 are highly concerning as they're not addressing concerns. While flem was perhaps being inappropriate, that doesn't mean that his points and arguments magically disappear.

Sorry for the rambly nature of this post, this is where my head is at right now, but I hope my general point has been made, ish.
 
flemingovia:
This recall seems to me to be a no-brainer. Roman has not only scuppered a major trial, he has done so in a childish manner, and with such pique and churlishness that I was astonished. He has shown, and expressed, utter contempt for the judicial system, his own office, and his fellow justices. He is not fit to wear the robes.

Since he is not enough of a gentleman to resign, the proper response is recall.
Click to expand...
Flemingovia's post summarizes my own thoughts.

I was skeptical about supporting the recall when it was originally introduced. However, after observing the absolutely inappropriate way in which Romanoffia conducted himself during the trial, and especially towards its end, I am now going to support it.

After the conclusion of the trial, and while Romanoffia was celebrating on IRC the stunt he had pulled, I asked him several times to resign. Since he is refusing to, I will vote for the recall instead.
 
At this point, I concur with r3n and Flem on the points they have raised. I really felt Roman had been doing a pretty decent job as a justice, but when I consider his stance towards the laws of TNP, how he dismissed the case because his feelings were hurt, and potential future harm he could do while justice a recall seems appropriate.

I can't say that is how I will vote, but, regrettably, I'm leaning in that direction.
 
I really do think this could all have been avoided, but alas, it seems not. I think I might be in favour of this after originally leaning towards against.
 
You are all missing a very technical point here.

1.) Given that this is a legislative action, you have failed to hold the proper "Formal Debate" phase that all legislative actions must have. Lacking this, I will be compelled to ask the greater Court, plus an unbiased THO to review this legal and constitutional point.

After all, if I am being accused of not following the rules that I am entitled to create as needed as CJ, then I think the RA in terms of the Speaker should adhere to the same provisions.

2.) As Chief Justice, I am entitled to create specific rules when no such rules exist, and do so 'on the fly'. This practice is established in precedent. And that's in the rules/Constibilicode.

3.) I again assert that the only reason for this recall is because I dismissed the case of TNP v. JAL instead of ram-rodding through a conviction as popularly demanded.

Again, if Justices are subject to recall for making unpopular decisions or rendering unpopular verdicts in compliance with Court Rules as defined in the Court Rules and Constitution, then there is no such thing as an independent judiciary, and no such thing as separation of powers despite what the Constitution claims.

I will also be filing several other requests for review concerning several points of the Constitution, Court Rules and specific Laws that are in direct Conflict with the Constitution.

But alas, I suspect that none of them will ever be given a serious hearing because the results may be unpopular.
 
r3naissanc3r:
flemingovia:
This recall seems to me to be a no-brainer. Roman has not only scuppered a major trial, he has done so in a childish manner, and with such pique and churlishness that I was astonished. He has shown, and expressed, utter contempt for the judicial system, his own office, and his fellow justices. He is not fit to wear the robes.

Since he is not enough of a gentleman to resign, the proper response is recall.
Click to expand...
Flemingovia's post summarizes my own thoughts.

I was skeptical about supporting the recall when it was originally introduced. However, after observing the absolutely inappropriate way in which Romanoffia conducted himself during the trial, and especially towards its end, I am now going to support it.

After the conclusion of the trial, and while Romanoffia was celebrating on IRC the stunt he had pulled, I asked him several times to resign. Since he is refusing to, I will vote for the recall instead.
Click to expand...
Read my dismissal of TNP v. JAL.

The AG is entirely free to re-file the charges against JAL. I believe that is proper and fitting.

Also, be away, as has been discussed numerous times elsewhere, the pressure I was receiving in terms of the demands upon me to find JAL guilty no matter what the evidence or lack thereof indicated, I concluded that it is impossible at this time to even adjudicate this case in a fair and impartial way.

If allowing the AG to re-file and indictment at a point when either a stronger case can be made or when a fair trial can indeed be conducted is grounds for a recall, then recall away.

If I resign, then it will be perceived as wrong. If I don't resign, it will be perceived as wrong. I am left with a situation in which no matter what I do I am going to be seen as wrong. At least be forcing a recall attempt, then there is still a chance that an independent judiciary free from political pressure to render popular decisions.

Again, this vote is not really about recalling a Justice, it is about whether or not we truly have an independent Judiciary that can operate free from public opinion or a Judiciary that will make all of its decisions under threat of recall if those decisions are unpopular.

And you, of all people, r3n, should know where I am coming from on this matter and take that into consideration.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
It isn't a legislative proposal. :)

I actually read the RA procedures recently. *pats self on back*
Click to expand...
So, the legislative branch now has more than just legislative authority?

Sounds like a Constitutional Violation to me.

Then again, the Constitution seems to be slipping back into a 'fluid' state where it can mean anything that anyone wants it to mean if it means forcing the Court to convict people on popular considerations.

*pats self on back*
 
That's all fine and dandy.

And again, It is quite apparent and clear that no matter what I do and no matter what the recall vote determines, the Lynch Mob will get what they want. And that includes a Court that can be bullied into rendering opinions not only on popular bases but political bases.

But, if it makes you happy, I have been discussing the whole issue with a number of people who support my position. Despite their contention that they will produce enough votes to prevent the 2/3ds majority needed, I am also considering the fact that the best thing that I can do to prove the point I am making is to simply throw up my hands, not subject myself to a Lynch Mob and let the vociferous minority have the Court they want : A court that can be bullied into rendering Convictions and Decisions based upon popular threats of recall.

Be aware, though, if I do resign from the Court, it will set a precedent in which Justices will be predisposed to render decisions based upon political pressures; If I am successfully recalled (which is severely doubtful), then we end up with a TNP Court in which Justices will be perpetually recalled until they render a politically correct and popular decision. If I survive a recall, then we establish an independent Judiciary as the Constitution claims to establish.

Believe me when I say, my resignation will be doing no one any favors and will only serve to weaken the Constitution by eliminating an independent Judiciary. The precedent that Justices can be recalled for not adjudicating popular decisions devoid of Justice will be proved in that instance.

No matter what happens, my point is proved.

People who actually accomplish things in TNP will always be turned upon by a Lynch Mob. The answer in this matter may be to simply exist in a state of self-imposed exile with a number of chosen allies, refusing to partake openly in a government which is becoming irrenconcilably corrupt, and waiting for it all to collapse under its own weight, and then sit back and watch it happen, offering no advice or help to prevent it (which cannot be prevented).

But I will let you know what I decide in the next few hours. God help the Constitution.

You may find out the exact meaning of the phrase, "Who is John Galt?"

Laugh now, my friend, but be sure you will be weeping later. :P
 
Your biggest problem Roman is vomit of the word.

You talk too large and then don't back it up or worse reverse course. You stuck with your position to dismiss the case, stick with your position to not resign. Stop allowing a few posts to determine your actions; it's maniacally reactionary and continues to hurt your cause.

As DD pointed out, this is a non-legislative task. As such it follows the non-legislative procedures. You're being recalled not because you gave a poor opinion on a matter...you're being recalled because the actions you took in the courtroom were really manic. Actually, when this recall motion opened up, there was probably a small chance of you getting recalled but then you spoke, took offense, and took actions that appear to a wide swath of political ideologies to be very detrimental to the court. When you have that level of confluence across perspectives, I think looking in the mirror at your actions is appropriate. There isn't a mob out to get you, but people are very concerned with the actions you took or may take in the future on the court. I hope you don't gloss over those real concerns.
 
While everyone may have a difference of opinion as to the manner in which the trial was handled and the emotional displays put forth by the Chief Justice, the fact remains that he was within his right to dismiss the case. This vote seems to be more about personality conflicts than legal impropriety.
 
Romanoffia:
But I will let you know what I decide in the next few hours. God help the Constitution.
Laugh now my friend, but be sure you will be weeping later
Click to expand...
I have been reading this twaddle from Roman both here and in the courthouse.

I think he honestly believes that his recall / resignation will spell the end of the entire constitution. :blink: :blink: :blink:

the constitution may fall one day; but rest assured, Roman, it is robust enough to survive your recall.
 
Gracius Maximus:
While everyone may have a difference of opinion as to the manner in which the trial was handled and the emotional displays put forth by the Chief Justice, the fact remains that he was within his right to dismiss the case. This vote seems to be more about personality conflicts than legal impropriety.
Click to expand...

You don't seriously think any of these guys care a tinker's dam about the law? ;)

All they care about is piling on because I wouldn't guarantee a conviction of JAL. They fail to see that there is no Justice when you apply the law absolutely, but they don't care about the law, the constitution or even about The North Pacific.

What we actually have here is a handful of people, miffed at the fact that someone dares not to be a toady to the 'Oligarchy' that apparently vets everyone before they get elected and then excludes anyone who doesn't toe the party line.

Same old story, same old TNP. But it will never change because certain individuals here just love to pile on an engage in lynch mob tactics. Sure, it works for a while, but eventually people get wise to it. And get wise they will. :lol:

flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
But I will let you know what I decide in the next few hours. God help the Constitution.
Laugh now my friend, but be sure you will be weeping later
Click to expand...
I have been reading this twaddle from Roman both here and in the courthouse.

I think he honestly believes that his recall / resignation will spell the end of the entire constitution. :blink: :blink: :blink:

the constitution may fall one day; but rest assured, Roman, it is robust enough to survive your recall.
Click to expand...

Oh, from whence comes this noble spout of maturity (again) on your part, Flem?

PD talks about the 'vomit of the word', and he should have really made that comment about you, especially considering, in all you 'maturity' and in an utter display of total lack of anything resembling class and dignity, you, in the past week, have called me a "twat" and a "dickhead". Those are your exact words, not mine.

Now, mind you, I am a big enough person with enough self respect to laugh such idiotic and foul prattle off as a matter of considering the source. Such crude language such as you have used towards another member of this community is entirely uncalled for and shows an utter lack of restraint on your part. Since I have known you, your language has deteriorated to the point that gutter snipes would probably blanch.

One of your posts was reported to moderation, but not by me as you well know. I even posted in the moderation thread that I was not offended by being called a (in your exact wording) a "dickhead". I think that was a rather gracious response on my part considering that the post being reported by a third party was made by an Admin on this forum.

As such, your crude language bordering on the obscene and most definitely over the line of profane (in the strictest sense of the word) might be expected of some people on this board, and even tolerated by the Admins, but your crudity has become a rather black mark on the Administration of this forum. How can order and civility be maintained on a forum when one of the Admins insists upon engaging in troll like comments in which obscenities and crudities are hurled at a person in what seems to be a manner going above and beyond IC fair play?

I have let a number of such offensive terms levelled at me by you slip in the past mainly because I find them quite amusing in the sense that it is amusing watching someone like you go over the edge out of frustration. Hopefully, it is only IC frustration and not unfounded personal enmity on your part.

The next time it happens, I will not be so gracious and I will take it personally and you will find that if forum administration will not put a lid on it, there are other means to do so, mainly a TOS complaint. If you don't believe me, hurl one more childish bathroom term my way and you will find out exactly what I can do about it.

I hate to treat you like a child, but continue to act like one and you will most assuredly get a metaphorical spanking involving a TOS complaint with the board host.

I've had enough of this crap. Grow up, Flem, grow up.
 
It's always nice when comments are made about my intent and then my entire post about my intent when proposing this motion entirely of my own accord and without consultation with other people gets completely ignored! Wonderful!

I'm not going to repeat myself, but I'd appreciate a response, Roman.
 
Abbey Anumia:
It's always nice when comments are made about my intent and then my entire post about my intent when proposing this motion entirely of my own accord and without consultation with other people gets completely ignored! Wonderful!

I'm not going to repeat myself, but I'd appreciate a response, Roman.
Click to expand...
One of the lovely things about life is that one can choose to totally ignore anyone one chooses to ignore.

Were you saying something or has a tire somewhere sprung a leak and is in dire need of some serious vulcanization?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top