| Legal Question on Candidate Eligibility |
|
I think there's a clear CoI with Feirmont, so I'm not sure how he can possibly serve as the Appellate Justice?
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) (02-14-2016, 06:13 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I think there's a clear CoI with Feirmont, so I'm not sure how he can possibly serve as the Appellate Justice? I do not, as a rule allow my various circumstances to interfere with the requirements of the roles I hold. If I am expected to be impartial and neutral as a requirement of a role, then I will ensure I adhere to that.
I do not believe there is any conflict of interest in this case. Feirmont is ever known for being impartial when circumstances require it, and he has my full confidence that he will act as is required.
Honestly, he's the very last person who would act improperly. (02-14-2016, 06:00 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: That would be wholly unprecedented and there's no legal authority found in our Charter or laws that would allow the High Court to suspend or prolong the election. Actually there is. Last year when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs election was disputed, the declared winner was both denied their seat and the election was effectively suspended until a resolution was found in the Courts.
The election wasn't suspended. The Cabinet enacted an executive policy to prevent anybody from holding a Cabinet office until the disputed election results were settled by the court. The court didn't suspend or prolong an election-- it invalidated an incorrect result, and I was immediately instated as MoFA and the executive policy expired (afaik).
That is not legal (or historical) precedent for suspending an election in order to prolong the nomination period just in case Belschaft gets his security threat declaration overturned in the Assembly. Which is, by the way, not a sure thing and is only passing by a 1-vote razor thin margin. So acting under the assumption that it will pass for sure is a bit premature. Those are two entirely different scenarios. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (02-14-2016, 07:08 PM)Wolf Wrote:(02-14-2016, 06:00 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: That would be wholly unprecedented and there's no legal authority found in our Charter or laws that would allow the High Court to suspend or prolong the election. The delay was caused by extrajudicial methods and its subject was unrelated to the matters dealt with by this case. (02-14-2016, 07:12 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: The election wasn't suspended. The Cabinet enacted an executive policy to prevent anybody from holding a Cabinet office until the disputed election results were settled by the court. The court didn't suspend or prolong an election-- it invalidated an incorrect result, and I was immediately instated as MoFA and the executive policy expired (afaik). Yes, because the law is so damn stupid that an 18-5 margin is barely sufficient. (02-14-2016, 06:26 PM)Feirmont Wrote:(02-14-2016, 06:13 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I think there's a clear CoI with Feirmont, so I'm not sure how he can possibly serve as the Appellate Justice? You are running for MoFA. I am appealing the restriction of ballot access for the MoFA election. I by no means believe that you are unable to act impartially in this matter, but basic common sense dictates that you have a CoI as thus have to recuse yourself. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I recuse myself.
This is honestly absurd, and it's the exact kind of behavior that has consistently caused us problems. Every major crisis this region has faced in the past two years has been because individuals simply don't want to accept the laws we have. The law says you have to be citizen, Belschaft. You aren't one, by an unfortunate case of bad timing. It's a situation caused in part by you telling us you weren't applying, and then nobody bringing the issue up until past the last second.
At this point, there isn't anybody qualified who can sit on an appeal. The players who have the experience and judgement needed are also players who are *involved in the region.* So of course they've voted on the issue of your security threat status. Feirmont was the only one who hadn't, and now he's been driven out of the court. Like our laws or not, the court has spoken. Farengeto's ruling is the only logical outcome, and Belschaft's entire legal case is that we should dispense with the law and grant a special exception... just because. This ridiculous accusation of judicial misconduct and a "violation of procedural due process" won't change the outcome of the case, because our legal system does not allow for special exemptions from the law just because somebody thinks the law is unfair and shouldn't apply in this particular case. This is a inconsequential special election to fill a caretaker cabinet. Why is Belschaft causing a constitutional crisis over it? Not only doesn't it make any political sense -- you're testing the patience of your supporters! -- but it's exactly the kind of drama this region doesn't need on the cusp of a major constitutional convention. All parties should accept the court ruling as is, in the interests of not blowing the community up yet again. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |