Impeachment of Aggie, Togas and Arnelos

[DAVOUT]

notyoueither,

Nobody knows if I am the only one, but others dont bother with that, or dont care, or let me do it. But to be honest, would I be the only one that would not change my thinking.
What is also true, is that I have been told so many wrong arguments, or so many statements without arguments that I feel quite comfortable with mine.
To be franck, I must say that the ruling is one of the worst piece of decision I ever red; you cannot expect that we understand such a ruling. The Court should have explained a bit the decision, all the more that it was quite clear that at least one citizen will read it. I made a short comment by PM to the Senior Justice; ask him what he answered.
Now, I have explained what I (but fortunately not only me !) understand by precedent. Tell me where I am wrong.

[notyoueither]

You have explained nothing. All you have said is that you disagree. That is fine, you are free to disagree.

You are not free to drag the nation through the mud. Well, actually, you are free to do that. Just don't expect any allies in the effort.

Now, if you can tell me why your crusade is vital to the well being of the nation, I would like to know. I will have to make some decisions within the the next 12 or 24 hours, and I would like to rest easy knowing that I gave you a fair hearing.

[DAVOUT]

I wonder what it becomes when you are poking and trolling ...

Anyway I have said enough; it is fruitless to speak to somebody who refuses to hear.

[notyoueither]

Now you are insulting DAVOUT. Good plan.

Now, who is it who refuses to hear?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now you are insulting DAVOUT. ?

Could you explain, I dont see the point.

[DAVOUT]

To The Court,

I have the regret to deny the presence of Justice notyoueither amonst the Justices stating on the present case.

He has clearly expressed a bias againt my case and hostility against my person in the course of the hearing (see above post).

[Beta]

Davout - restez calme, mon ami, or at least take a valium (that is meant as light humor, to make sure there is no misunderstanding).

notyoueither(nye) approached you reasonably. He fully acknowledged your right to as he put it 'drag the nation through the mud'. As have most of the people on this thread.

He simply wanted to understand your position. And look at your reaction.

So - let me ask - is this roleplay? (and I ask this question fully acknowledging the quantum leap from real life to apolytonia) If it is, it is well done, but I would humbly suggest has gone too far.

Or, are you just trying to be difficult for the 'fun' of it'? (my assumption is that you are a stubborn individual, but that you are not just doing this for the fun of it. If you are, then I would not be alone amongst Apolytonians in being more than dissappointed with you.)

Or, are you truly concerned with the rights and wrongs of the case? And, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume this to be so. In which case, talk with notyoueither as a member of the court, so as he has indicated, he can understand your position.

Your modus operandi (if there is a Latin expert out there, please correct my spelling) in this thread has been to dismiss those who disagree with you. I am relatively new to Apolyton and Apolytonia, but I find the general population intelligent, open-minded, and with a well-developed sense of fairness and justice. The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has is a testament to this.

So please Davout, work with notyoueither to resolve this. Thank-you for reading. ..... beta

[Arnelos]

DAVOUT,

You have asked why all of us can't see what you see. All of us are equally perplexed as to why you can't see what we all mutually see. The level of misunderstanding has amounted to the point that I can see many are convinced that you MUST be role-playing because they have too much faith in your capability to reason to believe that you can't see why the Court decided the way it did (and that we supported it).

In the event you REALLY still don't get it:

- The Constitution has a provision for how cases of Impeachment are handled. That provision is for the Court to be place of hearing and for all citizens to have the right to bring matters before the Court, no matter how petty or how stupid or how unpopular.

- The Senate is not given a right (anywhere) to pardon anyone of any crime. The Court is explicitly given the power to determine what is and what is not a crime.

- The one power the Senate DOES have is to decide whether to remove from office a minister who is deemed by the Court to have committed an impeachable offense. This means the Senate may act on punishment AFTER the Court has already argued on whether the offense is impeachable, not BEFORE.

- While the Senate is given powers not otherwise stated in the Constitution, the power of interpreting and enforcing laws, especially as it regards hearing cases of impeachment, is given explicity to the Court. It is therefore NOT the right of the Senate to take that power away (unless it be by an ammendment).

- More broadly, there are larger principles at work here. You seem to be upset because the power of the Senate is being infringed upon by the power of the Court and this reduces the scope of democracy. This is true and I believe, unlike what you saying, we DO understand this to be the case.

The difference is that we seem to understand why it is NECESSARY. You see, majority rule is only half of what makes a functioning democracy work. Making some rules (namely the civil rights of individual citizens) sacrosanct and beyond the reach of majority rule is essential to the operation of successful democracy. Otherwise, the majority inevitably tramples the rights of any minority it so chooses. In this case, the right which you seek the majority to trample upon is a very key right - your right, as an individual citizen, to a hearing before the Court.

It is not only the case that the Senate is not given this power in the constitution, but seemingly everyone (perhaps even you) understands that it should NEVER be given this power, regardless of the circumstances.

About Precedent...

The other issue you've attacked is the one of precedent.

You have argued here that we needn't pay any attention to the establishment of precedent. That we can violate the law here with a clearly unconstitutional Court decision and then trust the Court to follow the constitution more strictly in other matters.

But that is where the problem lies... if the Court is to violate the Constitution it was created to protect here, does not that create the expectation that the Court will be permitted to violate it again in the future? What is to stop the Court from doing so?

You seem to think that the Court has overstepped its bounds by invalidating a Senate Bill... nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the Court would be grossly overstepping its bounds if it ALLOWED for a Senate Bill that violated the Constitution.

In the practice of "common law" and the concept of the rule of law upon which it is based, it is understood that you cannot simply choose for the legal system to break its own laws today and follow them tomorrow. Once the legal system stops following the laws that are written, what's the point of writing them down after that? If the rules are to be established by whatever is convenient at the moment, why have a constitution?

We have a constitution because whatever may seem convenient at the moment (allowing the majority to pardon the president for a clear violation of the law) is NOT advisable from a broader perspective. We want a democracy, not a MASSocracy.

Or, as another put it:

"Democracy doesn't work without rights. Because you can't have 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

We have chosen here to allow the majority to rule, but have compelled it to respect individual rights and the rule of law in doing so. To do otherwise is to risk not having any rules or rights at all. That is why I termed the precedent you wish for "dangerous".

[ManicStarSeed]

To what is left of Court of Apolyton:


If procedure allows me (If it doesn't tell me where it does belong), I ask (move) that this case be thrown out as it has no merit.

as for Arnelos and Togas, they DID NOTHING and can not be tried without evidence of wrong doing. They have been forthcoming and do not deserve this.

As for Aggie, It is in presidential power to make such a desision;
Per Article I
1.d - The President must follow the instructions of the Senate and Ministers while playing the game unless the instruction is clearly erroneous, or made impossible and/or harmful by changed circumstances. he must abide by the intent of the Senate or Minister in making the changes.

Made harmful by changed circumstances = Rome Declaring War - 2 front war is scheduled.
Abide by the intent of senate or ministers = Willingness of the senate and he FAM to enter MMPs and Alliances for assistance in the current war effort (though yet declared). And it was reasonable to assume that in a two front war (made harmful by changed circumstance) we needed a cheap set of alliances (the MPPs in this case).

This fact is a matter of public record displayed in the subsequent discussions and polls that agreed with the decision but "condemed the process"


It is case a misapplication of the constitution and should be thrown out.

Please note, The evidence in this case is all public record. I encourage the court to look back through threads and JUDGE for YOURSELVES if the if Aggie (Not Arnelose or Togas) followed the intent of the Senate by entering the MMPs. I put forth that the general mood of the Senate "Wow, ROME AND germany, those extra MPPs will help, heck we are planning some others soon.."

On a personal note, I am sorry that I created a bill that started all this nonsense. I can agree with roadcage now, but I was not seeking this. Just watching a back.


Respectfully;
Mss

[DAVOUT]

Betahound,

I never took a valium in my life, I will not begin now and for that. Your light humor is welcome, and your questions interesting.

Is this role play ? Can it be something else ? Are the Justices roleplaying ? Would it be possible that only one guy was roleplaying in Apolytonia ? Then, what means too far in roleplaying : the dead end, the situation leading nowhere, or in no direction interesting the roleplayers. No big deal, go back to the last crossroad and take an other way.

But when it comes to me (what I am trying, my motives) I am a bit more reluctant: the problem is not me. My personal influence in the present situation is almost nothing; the whole thing is a consequence of the system which not only made it possible, but to some extent caused it. And in front of that, that I do not think good at all for Apolytonia, I did the only thing I could do, I acted according to the law. But I am unfortunate, any time I use a right according to the law (call for impeachment or dismissal of a Justice), someone with a better understanding come and tell me that I should not have done so.

I am surprised that in a population where we find so many great strategists, no one has anticipated, in time, the coming of this (small) crisis. I am also surprised that it is apparently so difficult to find a legal outcome without killing a scapegoat. In that, I want (stubbornly if you like) the abscess to be drained. And they are many ways for open-minded people as you are with so many others.

As far as notyoueither is concerned, I tried recently, as plaintiff, to discuss with him as Justice, and it failed badly. I don’t think appropriate that a plaintiff be treated as a culprit, already condemned in the mind of the Judge.

Well, not exactly what you wanted, but we have been taught that the Apolytonian law must be applied to the last letter.

[ManicStarSeed]

For the Court to consider:

Also, on a CONSTITUTIONAL NOTE---> I tried this point in my now infamous court case, but it poorly as it did not sink in. The Senate is a body, singular, governed by majority.

Our all our citizens are EITHER senators, ministers, prez, vp or judges. Citizen DOES NOT always EQUAL Senator. You can RESTRICT behavior for being a member of any ONE of these OFFICES and the restriction does not apply to the individual rights.

The SENATE and FAM were wronged in this regard. It must be either one (only 2 possiblle wronged) that calls for the trial. Since Davout was not FAM and he can not speak for the SENATE as a body, he has no personal claim to injustice. It was not a personal action, No individual can claim it personaly enough to

This is what happens when you do not let the decision for impeachment go through the legistalute BEFORE trial. That is why I tried to create that cursed err... "poll"

The point of this whole thing is that to be a member of the Senate you DO sacrifice yourself to the will of the vote when you speak as THE SENATE.

Since this case is so tied to #7,
THE SENATE can decide not to press charges for wrongs against it.
THE SENATE can decide to change its mind.
This is all done via bills and laws.
Individual rights do not include speaking for THE SENATE. which can not SPEAK except by democratic vote.
If the law stood, Any one of the ministers could have callerd for an impeachment. because it did not revoke an individuals right, just THE SENATES.


Ok thats enough. I've said my peace.
Thanks Davout for putting your head on the chopping block.
Thank you court for your energy and attention to thes matters

Thank you O Great Banana and Apolyton for this huge bag of nuts

Mss

[Beta]

"Amen" to that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
To what is left of Court of Apolyton:

I am not going anywhere. Davout's request will be reviewed.

[notyoueither]

Sheik. Empty your PMs.

[Sheik]

Emptied

[Arnelos]

First of all:

Originally posted by Togas
Article V. Impeachment
1 Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an elected Minister, President, or Judge to a member of the Court.

Second of all, there is established precedent for ANY citizen (regardless of whether affected by any specific action) to bring charges of impeachment against a minister. Aside from this being precedent, it is ADDITIONALLY the case that this makes sense: ALL citizens have an interest in the INTEGRITY of their ministers. If a minister violates a law (whether or not it is their law is irrelevant), this means that said minister is acting outside the laws and ANY citizen has the right to ask for their impeachment on the grounds that the minister is no longer capable of maintaining their trust or that of ANY citizen on the matter.

As regards your argument that Aggie committed no crime because there's a line in the Constitution giving him some measure of discretionary power...

It should be noted that the FIRST OFFENSE by Aggie was failing to end the chat when war was declared and decisions needed to be made which would violate current Senate Laws. If there was ever a reason that something might be considered a "national emergency", that very well might be it... Thus the only way you can argue that the SECOND charge (that of violating the Senate Laws due to the situation being an "emergency") is invalid is to make the FIRST charge valid. Either way, Aggie is still culpable.

As for DAVOUT's right to bring the case, I have (at least) been consistent from the beginning on this issue: He has (and should never have believed that he was infringed) on his right to bring forward whatever cases for impeachment that he wishes. Whether they be with merit or without merit is of no relevance: he has the right to at least be heard by the Court and the Court can determine the merit of the case.

That said, DAVOUT, just because you have the RIGHT to do something doesn't mean you are entitled to the exercise of said right being popular

However, I honestly admire your courage in bringing forward this case. I've been saying repeatedly for the past week that I admitted that I simply didn't have the guts to bring a case against Aggie because I feared what it would do to the community (even though I knew that what he did deserved it). I also repeatedly said that it looked like no-one else had the guts either. Well, you did it.

I may think the circumstances under which you did so (having just lost hte court case) are why many think you look petty and that bringing charges against myself and Togas serves no purpose other than cheapen your case (as is evident by the above thread), but I still have to give you credit for having the guts to do what others probably were just too timid to do themselves: bring the case to the Court.

I think I'm ready to shut up about this for now...

I need to take care of some stuff in RL.

[Togas]

As I have just returned from a short birthday trip I return to find that nothing has been done in this case, but there have been quite a few more posts. I have three thoughts about all this:

1) This pointless impeachment is not a retrial of Case #7 nor an appeal. There shouldn't be any rearguing of the issue because the judges aren't going to change their minds about it. Davout originally asked for an appeal and most of us discussed it and were going to reject it before MSS withdrew the request.

2) I respect people who have the courage to stand up and do what is right, but I do not respect people who have the stubborness to stand up and do what is wrong because they want to be right. The ends don't justify the means, which is exactly what Davout is trying to do. He'll go to whatever means he has to (blaming The Court for it in the process) to get someone to say that he was right and everyone else was wrong. He'll hurt Aggie and harass Arnelos and myself just because his interpretation of the law was rejected unanimously. I have no respect for these sorts of actions and I do not share Arnelos's begrudging admiration.

3) I wonder, as do most of Apolytonia, why The Court can't act on this matter in a timely fashion. Could someone from the inside please make and post a decision?

--Togas

[Sheik]

I would post the decision but I think NYE is going to do so soon and wanted to PM Nimitz and Godking first (they were also away this weekend). If NYE is unable to post it by 1pm I will post a makeshift decision and once we get something more presentable that will be posted as the official decision.

I would like to point out again that The Court isn't slow when comes to making a decision it is slow when it comes to posting a decision. Maybe it is about time that we got a reporter that could post decisions and sort through other stuff. I think that would speed the process up.

[Aggie]

Arnelos,I am somewhat disappointed with your response. Not because it is against me, but because your facts imply that we played on several turns after the DOW. In fact we stopped the very turn that this happened. Yes we did some attacks and movements but since I was legal SMC then and ET was acting SMC I decided it was not worthy of stopping before we had completed these moves, but we did stop before ending the turn. I did want to go on, but listened to the cabinet who wanted(looking back rightly) to stop. The act that made listening to the FAM positions impractical was NOT the DOW but the invasion of roman troops w/o DOW(during turn 1). This was the unforeseen circumstance that made it acceptable to slightly alter FAM orders. Unless we want to stop for every single unforeseen event. So I was well within the spirit of the law(and more importantly the will of the people) and in the end that is what matters.
Aggie

[notyoueither]

In the matter of DAVOUT calling for the Impeachment of Arnelos, Togas, and Aggie the Court has decided:

vs Arnelos, dismissed (4 to 0, notyoueither, GodKing, Sheik, panag).

vs Togas, dismissed (4 to 0, notyoueither, GodKing, Sheik, panag).

vs Aggie, dismissed (3 to 0, notyoueither, GodKing, Sheik; with 1 abstention, panag).

More information will be posted at a later time in the topped court thread.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
To The Court,

I have the regret to deny the presence of Justice notyoueither amonst the Justices stating on the present case.

He has clearly expressed a bias againt my case and hostility against my person in the course of the hearing (see above post).

Motion denied.

[GodKing]

I appologize also to the people who were reading this thread. Last week toward the end of the week we all discussed this. We used PM's. On friday afternoon, I thought all was decided, except who was going to post what the decision was. I was away for the weekend, and did not log on until this (monday) morning. As I am at work, and now on my lunch break, I can do a little typing regarding this.

What NYE has indicated is accurate. The delay to posting is caused by the lack of a "leader" if you will among the court. Each case is assigned a new leader each and every time. That person is responsible for doing the write up. We never came up with one on this case. I left for the weekend assuming the other justices would do it. They probably did the same. I think to help alleviate this, we have to sit down amongst ourselves and come up with a better system for handling these issues in a timely mannor.

DAVOUT - by your posts, to me it sounds like you are not compleatly understanding the issues that the court ruled upon in case #7. I would be more than happy to sit in a chat with you and go over it point by point. Or, even better, if you are anywhere in the Detroit area, sit down over a beer (or other beverage of your choice) and do so. As with most legal things, it is confusing until you break it up into parts. Any persons so interested in such a chat PM me and I will arange it.

Again, appologies for the delays.

GK

[DAVOUT]

Happy end !

Our hero Aggie cannot any longer be subject to any suspicion, let alone accusation (I built the Arc de Triomphe after all). Our Nation is not in the mud, it is at is best economically, militarily, scientifically, and we, the people, have shown to the world that we are prepared to risk ANYTHING to protect those who have earned our respect and our esteem.

It was so easy finally, why all this fuss was made ? We respect the law as long as we understand it. We dont want it to be translated by highpriests. We are in Apolytonia, we want our laws, not the common law referred to by some.

Sorry, Togas, sorry Arnelos, your only crime was to be present to the alleged wrongdoings, and to be celebrities of the Empire.

Godking, I dont refuse your offer, but beware, you will be explaining difficult things to a stubborn and irresponsible guy.

[GodKing]

Understood. If you are going to be around on wednesday (the 1st) I am planning on putting together a Gazette. We can do it then. I live in Detroit, which is Eastern Time Zone. Let me know your schedule.

GK

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GodKing
Understood. If you are going to be around on wednesday (the 1st) I am planning on putting together a Gazette. We can do it then. I live in Detroit, which is Eastern Time Zone. Let me know your schedule.

GK

I am leaving early to morrow morning for year end in family. Ill be back thursday afternoon (gmt+1).

[Thud]

From what I see here, you may as well have another go at my head with this case. You could reason that I was the one that moved the troops that led to the situation in which the MPPs were signed. This reasoning is certainly just as strong as the justification for the impeachment of Togas and Arnelos.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Aggie
Arnelos,I am somewhat disappointed with your response. Not because it is against me, but because your facts imply that we played on several turns after the DOW. In fact we stopped the very turn that this happened. Yes we did some attacks and movements but since I was legal SMC then and ET was acting SMC I decided it was not worthy of stopping before we had completed these moves, but we did stop before ending the turn. I did want to go on, but listened to the cabinet who wanted(looking back rightly) to stop. The act that made listening to the FAM positions impractical was NOT the DOW but the invasion of roman troops w/o DOW(during turn 1). This was the unforeseen circumstance that made it acceptable to slightly alter FAM orders. Unless we want to stop for every single unforeseen event. So I was well within the spirit of the law(and more importantly the will of the people) and in the end that is what matters.
Aggie

I'll grant that at least you didn't end the turn.

However, I'll point out that the only reason you didn't end the turn was because I put up one hell of a stink about ending the chat with a lot of people in the chat angry at me that I didn't want us to continue playing the game.

The straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was that I told you that if you ended the turn it would mean a Court case. THAT was when you finally relented and decided to end the chat (and you weren't happy about it in the slightest).

That you ended the chat there is precisely WHY I didn't take the matter to the Court. You showed some courage in ending the chat there because there were a lot of people on your side of that issue who were PISSED that the chat was ended, violations to the NewCon or no.

Furthermore, you admitted that you knew about the illegality of the MPPs when I figured you'd just made an honest mistake. I have a great deal of respect for your honesty there. Not quite sure how many other people I would expect to do the same thing in the same situation.

Now... I'm done with this issue... I think we should just bury it at this point and move on.

[GodKing]

nye PMed me and indicated that he will be leaving for a while. He will not be able to write up the "official" report in the court thread. I told him I would do so, however it will not probably be until wednesday or so. Sorry if this delay causes any problems, however the decision has been rendered (read nye's posts above), it is just the formality of a write up that is missing.

gk

[Panag]

hi ,

so the matter is now completely cleared out , ....

no more calls for "justice" now from anyone




good

have a nice day

and a happy new year to all , no matter if you use a MAC or not , no matter your race , religion , gender or planet you are from

[History Guy]

I am glad to note that the case is ended, successfully. I know my voice means nothing, though it once did mean something, very briefly. The lack of national pride is disconcerting, and the attempt to take down our old heroes is just as disconcerting. I remember one time in our past when a similar list of men was created by a young radical, Arnelos himself, a man suspect this day. Then I opposed that sort of demolition of the hero, and so do I now. The oldest heroes of Apolytonia were rooted out, Uber Krux, our old general, included, and were nearly slated for execution as 'enemies of the new regime'. My old voice croaked out in defense of our old values, and it does now the same.

I am glad of our vindications here, especially of Aggie, our old war hero, the man who made our empire, and of Togas, my old friend.

Gaius Publius History Guy
Villa Historia