[SPECIAL] Flem's R4R Re: Funk's Recusal

"Should the Court order Funkadelia recuse himself, would his previously appointed Hearing Officers also be removed from the case?"

Is this something we must consider?
 
I'm not sure I see where Funkadelia will have "personal gain" should he continue in the review. (That's going to get a bit confusing, with 2 reviews before the Court). On the other hand, it is quite obvious that there is a biased opinion in Funkadelia continuing to go forward with the review. There is a conflict of interest, very obviously. I believe that Funkadelia should recuse himself, which isn't easy to say. [If I wasn't doing this so early, I'd have more to say, but I am practically running out the door as it is.]

@The Grim Reaper: Likely. That can be addressed when we hear from everyone on the matter.
 
Would either of you draft an opinion? It seems there is an agreement. If not, I'll see what I can whip up.

Personally, I see where Funk may have felt he could be objective, particularly when flem had asked only for guidance to future elections, where he may have been under the impression that the outcome would not have an effect on this election's outcomes. Further, There were a small number of votes cast before the corrected ballot was sent out, among them being Grosse's vote which contained abstentions. The number of votes the ballot impacted was few enough that he would have been elected without them.

On the other hand, it can't be a bad thing to be overcareful to avoid a potential conflict of interest whenever possible.
 
Apologies. I thought I had posted this already. Any suggestions on modifications?

Draft:
court-seal.png

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by flemingovia on Refusal to Recuse

Opinion drafted by Justice Kialga, joined by Justice Severisen and THO The Grim Reaper​


The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by flemingovia.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant parts of the Bill of Rights and Adopted Court Rules of the North Pacific:
Bill of Rights:
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

Adopted Court Rules:
Chapter 3 - Section 1:
3. Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Chapter 4 - Section 2:
2. The petitioner in an accepted request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may file a request asking the Court to order the recusal of any Justice from hearing or ruling on a particular case.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The Request before the Court is on the refusal of a Justice to recuse himself from a Request where the petitioner believes a conflict of interest and lack of transparency in the review. It is to the agreement of the Court that, should Justice Funkadelia continue to be engaged in the Review, there is the potential that Justice Funkadelia will have bias.

The Court, upon reviewing the above, has reached the decision that Justice Funkadelia recuse himself from the Request for Review on Election Commissioner's Conduct.

The currently assigned Temporary Hearing Officers are hereby deemed procedurally invalid. As it stands, with all elected Justices being recused from the case, the Delegate will need to select new Temporary Hearing Officers. The current Temporary Hearing Officers are strictly invalid on a procedural basis, and may be reassigned should the Delegate deem fit, without having an immediate Conflict of Interest due to their initial appointments.
Click to expand...
 
A few things... one, I'd add an apostrophe to Election Commissioners' Conduct.

I would further add to the last part an emphasis that the appointed THOs are not inherently biased, and that they would not be automatically considered to have a CoI should the delegate choose to appoint them simply because they were initially appointed by Funkadelia.

Let's see what TGR has to say w/r/t this, then proceed.
 
I concur with Severisen - something along the lines of the THOs being invalid for procedural reasons (if Funkadelia is being ordered to recuse himself from the case, the THOs could not have been appointed in the first place) rather than as a comment on any vested interests, (which the court chose not to consider?).
 
Modified the final paragraph from:

In addition, the currently assigned Temporary Hearing Officers are hereby deemed invalid as of their current appointments. The current THOs are not viewed to have a Conflict of Interest. With all Justices being removed from the case, the Delegate will need to appoint THOs for the case with the agreement of the Speaker.
Click to expand...

to

The currently assigned Temporary Hearing Officers are hereby deemed procedurally invalid. As it stands, with all elected Justices being recused from the case, the Delegate will need to select new Temporary Hearing Officers. The current Temporary Hearing Officers are strictly invalid on a procedural basis, and may be reassigned should the Delegate deem fit, without having an immediate Conflict of Interest due to their initial appointments.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top