[RP] Call for Removal of Chief Justice

Marzena wrote:"I now call for the removal of Justice Arthur Loxley. He only just insulted this council member and showed his grasp of the English language. If he has issues understanding one English citizen, and a council member. Then his understanding of the law is now in question. Not to mention he has showed his prejudice against two of England's counties. The county of Chester, and of Cumberland. Further segregating the Northern counties from England. A behavior not suitable of a justice. Strange how his hand has been involved in most of the questionable cases in the COA since the subject has been brought up, and now I call for this body to remove him per charter, by vote."

Marzena wrote:

Article 4 – Resignations/Removals from the Court of Appeals
A. At their discretion, Justices may resign at any time from the Court of Appeals
B. Should a serving justice ever become a member of a County Council or become a Mayor of a town he will, either resign from the new post, or resign from being a justice.
C. Should a sitting Justice be found guilty of any crime in County Court, the Justice will be subject to review by vote in the Parliament.
In either case of Art 4, A, B, or C, the County which nominated the resigned/removed Justice, is able to appoint a replacement to take his/her seat pursuant to Art 3.
D. Each newly elected County Council reserves the right to review and recall a seated Justice. A new nominee must be presented and accepted by Parliament to replace the seated Justice.
E. The Chief Justice may request the removal of a Justice for the following reason:
1. Inactivity. The Chief Justice must show proof of inactivity.
2. Improper behaviour during any case - any action/s which denigrate the reputation of the appellate body; during the proceedings of a case, any actions deemed to bring the court or the individual justice into disrepute, any statements of inflammatory or insulting nature.
3. Other forms of improper behaviour outside court - Any behaviour which involves; action/s which denigrates the integrity of the court, statement/s outside of court that betray any bias and or prejudice on any of the happenings in any particular ongoing case, speaking in a manner outside of court not befitting a justice.

Passing out the document. "As listed by Mr. Loxley's own hand. Two points for HOP to consider in requesting the seat of this justice. Stafford is attempting a flood of justice's. So be it, but they also need to review the current.

By the rights of number 3. alone this nation has the right to ask for Mr. Loxley's seat as behaving as he did to Barerose a diplomat of Scotland he behaved in a manner that breeches this number. Not to mention insulting myself for an innocent comment on an independent investigation facilitated by his county. In which manner he also broke the rights of this council member to learn from this situation. As such I call for Mr. Loxley's seat since it doesn't state anywhere that this body can't call for the removal of a justice."

Lorddragon wrote:

Gabrielle_ wrote:
Your Honour, Cheif Justice of the English Court of Appeals,

Greetings.

As chair of the CoA Review Committee, comprised of Lady Lynet, Lord Beaker and Lord Aelfgar, I request a courtroom for our use to transmittal of any questions to the Justices from the committee.

I will present the questions from the committee as review of case load from the last 6 months commences beginning today.
The CoA Review Committee appreciates the cooperation of the Court in the mandate of review and hopes that this will done efficiently and properly as humanly (RP gamely) as possible.

Please inform of intent to honour this request... I will be the only one needed of courtroom access as well as all the current seated Justices.

In service to the Crown and Country,
Gabrielle Hamilton de Grey

So some very unsettling news just came to my attention. The HoL has started their own review of the CoA and 2 people on that committee cause much to be desired.

Lady Lynet, an esteemed member of the CoH, currently fingered in a corruption discussion of it's own, filled with massive, i dare say hatred for wolves and possibly former wolves for the destruction done to Cornwall during the wolf attacks, might not be a very impartial view upon cases that happen to be wolf related, regardless of former wolf, like myself and the former Duchess of Chester, or the defendants themselves.

I would ask another be chosen for her place.

Lord Aelfgar, who is a former (i believe) council member, who had some major problems with active enemy rosters. From personal letters shared between he and i, it took many times to convince him that the enemy rosters and army for that matter where no longer in effect, also what they entailed. He went even further to ask for me to break the laws of my county and provide the names of those wanted by the Courts to face trial, himself a judge at the time. The council he was apart of, sent a letter to the forces they sent to help Chester protect it's citizens, quoting that the Enemy Roster was illegal and to have their forces return immediately and without word to Chester that they were leaving.

I fear his impartiality may not be the best for any cases concerning Chester, to say the least.

The only one i can even remotely consider to stay on their committee would be Lord Beaker. He was very helpful upon his trip through Chester and while that only vouches for his character, i have nothing to say against him... Perhaps their are others?

I think a joint effort between the House of Lords and the House of Parliament would be for the best. A set of checks and balances to review everything from the Charter and how it applies directly to the cases and the justices alike.

Truly empowered by both Houses could that committee or review board do what needs to be done and satisfy all who oppose the measure. I ask that all members of that board be as impartial as humanly possible.

I offer apologies to those that feel their honor has been tainted, but i speak from my heart.

Marzena wrote:"I concur and second with LD."

Alamothih wrote:I wont comment on the suggestion to remove Lord Loxley, as I have nothing but respect for the man and the work he does for England in every area he's involved.

As to the review, Lord Beaker I have no problems with and have heard nothing but the best of him. I am unfamiliar with Lord Aelfgar except in the House of Lords, and he seems an exemplary man with clear direction and dedication to each thing he turns his mind.

Lady Gabrielle brings invaluable knowledge of the COA to the Review, and would not oppose her, but as her application to become a justice is very shortly to be presented to this House, I find that a conflict of interest also, unless the review will be over within the, say, 8 days it takes to vote on her here from our review in Stafford.

Lady Lynet I must agree with Lord Dragon though, but only from relatively few first hand experiences im afraid.

Millicent wrote:I know reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, Councilor Marzena, so I thought I'd point out the procedure to remove a Chief Justice to you:

Article 5 – Chief Justice
A. The Justices of the CoA shall select amongst their members a Chief Justice – the method of selection is entirely up to the CoA. The main responsibility of the Chief Justice is in naming the sitting justices for each case brought before the court.
Other duties include moderation of the CoA and representing the CoA to the Regency, the Parliament and HoL.
B. The Chief Justice is tasked with upholding the letter and intent of the Court of Appeals charter. Should a Chief Justice be negligent in this duty, a report of negligence received by the Court of Appeals Review Committee of the House of Lords shall investigate and within 5 days submit a report to the House of Parliament. Based on a report that supports negligence, the House of Parliament shall hold a vote of confidence. If passed, the Chief Justice continues his/her duties. If failed the Chief Justice will immediately resign from the court and be ineligible to serve the Court of Appeals for a period of 3 months.

I even bolded the pertinent portion of that section so you don't have to think too hard.

So go ahead, try to fill a report of the specific instances of Chief Justice Arthur's negligence. I think you'll find that the Chief Justice is one of the most active members left after the baseless assaults you and others have placed upon the Court of Appeals. He not only has been a very active and productive Chief Justice, but served admirably as Deputy Chief Justice the two months prior to his current term.

As an aside, I'm really interested in understanding how you think the Court of Appeals will function after you start a campaign to accuse each member of corruption (with no specific evidence to prove the wild claims), push to remove one of the most active members from his leadership position and generally make people second-think wanting to subject themselves to your abuse just to thanklessly serve on the Court of Appeals. I suppose I'm just assuming you actually want the Court of Appeals to work, but perhaps that's giving you too much the benefit of the doubt. You were a leader in the NEA, it collapsed. You're on the Cumberland Council, it's a disaster (thanks in no small part to you). You stuck your nose into the Court of Appeals affairs, it's quickly headed for ruin. Hmm, I think I see a patter emerging...

-MR

Marzena wrote:"Blah blah call has been made. Those pertinent to the ability know it. Nice to see you kept your own request for decent behavior in England so seriously... So odd back when many councilors from all over England showed mass issue with the COA and the corruption with in. You claimed then just as you do now that none would want to serve with such inquiry, yet just today the chief justice announced a new justice from Lancaster, and there were recently a load of applications from another county... Rather how odd we are still getting applicants, if not more applicants... Since Cumberland held a vote for our first justice. We just haven't had time with all going on to present to this body at this time for approval or not. Makes one wonder what was really stumbled upon. Perhaps if the COA had fixed it's own issues rather than attack those who found issue. Well maybe just maybe none of this would have been necessary. Though thank you for yet again showing yet another issue needing attention."

Lynna wrote:It might also be noted Counciler Marzena that there would be no new Justice from Lancaster if the Chief Justice wasn't himself recruiting on his way north and recruiting for the CoA. Lancaster Council was reminded of an approved application to present in HoP when the recruitment poster was created by the Chief Justice. He has started an application thread in both Lancaster and Cumberland.

Notjack5 wrote:Let me get this straight, you want to un-bench a Chief Justice for insulting you?

I recall, along with an "accomplice", of being charged (though not convicted) with having done the same thing you accuse Justice Loxely of committing, so I hope you will understand when I ask what was said that so egregiously offended thee?

You wish to remove this man as a Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of England for insulting you, without following due procedure-- even mocking our legal and binding procedure when it is presented to you. You, then, wish us to believe that you seek only an impartial and unbiased review of all the Justices of England? This, I offer, as food for thought, although perhaps you have an especial aptitude for recognizing bias when you see it.

Marzena wrote:"Right since you wish to alter the situation, nay I wish to bench a sitting justice for insulting a dignitary from another country. Further more since you wish to continue to pick where you shouldn't. Do you or do you not admit to placing a sitting justice from CW who was in fact breaking the law at the time of his sitting Duke Jd?"

Kenrich wrote:

You wish to remove this man as a Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of England for insulting you, without following due procedure-- even mocking our legal and binding procedure when it is presented to you. You, then, wish us to believe that you seek only an impartial and unbiased review of all the Justices of England? This, I offer, as food for thought, although perhaps you have an especial aptitude for recognizing bias when you see it.

Kenrich hears this

"Hear Hear Notjack5" Kenrich says

Aelfgar wrote:The Lord High Chancellor frowns at the course of this discussion.

I see there has been a vocal and highly partisan minority attempting to influence events within this house. Accusations have been made against the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords has agreed to conduct a review.

It has been agreed because the Court of Appeal is a vital institution and its impartiality is essential. The Court of Appeal Review Committee will review the Court of Appeal Activities in accordance with the law - not anyone's personal opinion. Those findings will then be presented by our Chair, Lady Gabrielle.

Lorddragon, I find your recall of past events highly selective. I did challenge the use of "Enemy Roster Lists", specifically because they were used in conjunction with a ban on personal travel that resulted in one individual being slain. As the then Judge of Wiltshire, I did call for the withdrawal of Wiltshire Army personnel from Chester County Palatine, because I did not want to risk my fellow citizens being involved in any potential legal challenge. When you eventually informed me that martial law was lifted, I accepted yor statement in good faith and ceased to pressure you for further information. I see nothing wrong in my actions.

However if you are of the persuasion that anyone who disagrees with you cannot be impartial - I have to wonder about your intent. Is it a review you want or a witch hunt? Because I do not believe this House will support such partisan activity.

Lynna wrote:Counciler Marzena,

Your outbursts are unwarranted, the comments made to a Scottish visitor to our land, anyone can see was in reply to a Scottish Citzen who, if I may quote

Barerose wrote:(I speak now as a citizen of Scotland and not as an official envoy)

Clearly stating that it was not as said in his official capacity as envoy, he was just having his say as is anyone else.

Marzena wrote:"They are completely warranted. Where as he may speak so humbly of himself. I can attest he was in fact still regardless a representative of a clan in Scotland, as well as the citizenry of his land. That is the same man who escorted me into Scotland to aide in the delivery of official documents, as well as a man partaking in the education available, and I believe providing education in Cumberland as well. He never raised his voice in Scotland, nor became involved. Behaving more to our benefit than that of our own citizen. He is here as an official voice, and regardless how humble he requires to be attempted to refocus a situation to where it should have been.

An that is not lynching a single individual. You husband as a high leader in most of our institutions should not have partaken in said actions. This was unbecoming of our nation, and explains fully why there are tensions between our nations. Claim innocents do to an out of world claim, but know it is not true in the aspect. It is your husband who chose to attack rather than bite his lip. I will gladly show you how nay a one citizen of Scotland who held public office such as your husband dared behave in such a manner when I visited. I dare say if a man such as your husband requires so many positions, and so much influence. He should respect all areas which could affect said light to our nation.

Mr. Loxley should and is being held accountable. No bride shall interfer because it's whom she wed. Your husband was wrong, and requested several times to offer apology to said person now. Once by me even, and has refused. Showing his true intent, and damage done. You would do better to remind your husband though he has raised in our ranks he is still a servant to England. Not his own vanity. Which means apologizing for horrible out bursts towards our visiting dignitaries rather should have politely corrected a misconception."

Lynna wrote:Councilor Marzena, Do I need to remind you I am here as a Council member of Stafford and not as anyone's "Bride" which is insulting to me and to the office I hold and the capacity in which I am in this Hall.

Marzena wrote:"Sure admonish with saburration. The issue is still as serpentine as a raad. This council member is using her wadmal to produce a lovely cabochon. England is not Mr. Loxley's personal Sabin."

(An yes that's English completely on topic.)

Millicent wrote:I'm so proud of you, Councilor Marzena! You know how to use a thesaurus! No wonder it’s your shortest post yet: you had to work for that one!

Good job!

-MR

Marzena wrote:"Nay those words can not be located in a thesaurus, care to tell me all the meanings?"

Jorne wrote:I believe this is what Marzena is trying to convey.

Marzena wrote:"Not even close Jorne... allow me to give clues in simplest of terms even children can understand...

saburration - application of hot sand as medical treatment
Sabin - unit of acoustic absorption of one square foot of a perfect absorber

"That should assist a little..."

Jorne wrote:Now if only the words could be used properly....

Marzena wrote:"Perhaps if you understood the full context you would see they are in fact. Unfortunately you thus far have entered, claiming it too a thesaurus, were made up, and now improperly used? Pfft haha danke for proving me right. Request for seat resignation remains."

Allikath wrote:OK
I'm sorry but I think this topic has outlived it's usefulness.

Lizabet wrote:Please allow me. Smile I believe what Councilor Marzena was attempting to say was:

Sure scold with earnest money (the correct meaning of the word "subarration"). The issue is still as snakeline as a (?) road (I am assuming this is the word you were attempting?). This council member is using her woolen fabric to make a lovely precious stone. England is not Mr. Loxley's personal sound absorption unit.

Of course even with a correct translation , it makes no more sense than it did before.

I'm sure all of us can come up with archaic, obsolete words. The trick is understanding their meaning and using them correctly. Wink Another trick would be to explain how this entertaining and instructive sideline ties in with the topic of this thread?

J-darst wrote:

Marzena wrote:"Right since you wish to alter the situation, nay I wish to bench a sitting justice for insulting a dignitary from another country. Further more since you wish to continue to pick where you shouldn't. Do you or do you not admit to placing a sitting justice from CW who was in fact breaking the law at the time of his sitting Duke Jd?"

Hearing Marzy continue to use his name yet again when he hadn't involved himself in this discussion whatsoever specifically because he had recently had a case overturned by the CoA, Duke J-darst stands up in frustration and says....

"Can I ask why you are talking to me in the first place when you are replying to Jack's comment? No, I certainly do not admit that since I was not Duke at the time so I had nothing to do with it other than voting in Council and in Parliament, same as you. When you hold yourself accountable for this "law breaking Justice", then I will as well since we both had the same level of involvement and authority at the time as regular Councilors. Just because I happened to be on the opposite side of your fixated fury does not mean I'm responsible for this decision as well, as much as you love to blame me for everything from insulting your long dead ex-husband to the typical conspiracy theory that seems to be rearing its ugly, imaginary head once again. Perhaps you should be talking to former Duke Enfuego, I believe you can find him in his home or at the Cornwall University most likely since he has retired from politics."

J-darst walks away shaking his head, thinking how funny it is that everywhere Marzy and her Four Horsemen (Baseless Accusations, Arguing, Hatred and Criminal Charges) go, they manage to affect people who aren't even involved in the slightest, and how utterly peaceful Cornwall has been since the day she left. Almost to the point it was at before she showed up in the first place.... His thoughts began forming into a little poem, complete with rhymes and everything, then he realized he had far more important things to think about in life and it quickly disappeared.