[Advisory Question] Regarding Temporary Removal of Delegates

The Conclave
1

— Begin quote from ____

Section 3) The Viziers may temporarily remove the Delegate if the majority of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. This removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium or a decision by the Conclave or the Delegate shall be reinstated.

— End quote

As a citizen I submit the following matter for consideration: the nature of the temporary removal of the Delegate as authorized by Article D, Section 3 of the Concordat.

Some have argued that the temporary removal of Article D Section 3 is not temporary- therefore I seek clarification on this matter and offer a number of ways which that argument falls apart.

[hr]To the Letter of the Law: In the temporary removal of the Delegate, the Viziers must “believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy [the] Concordat” AND “this removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours…or the Delegate shall be reinstated”.

The first operative sentence of the Section explicitly refers to the action as a “temporary” removal, and the second operative sentence goes on to reference “this removal”, being the “temporary” removal established in sentence one.
[hr]Further: The strict reading of the clause should default to the least ambiguous definitions. The clause states “temporarily remove” and does not then state it becomes permanent after confirmation. To read it that way is to add words which are not present, and a correct reading should not add any words much less change ones which are there.

An argument should focus more on what IS there than what IS NOT there. For example, the clause does not state “and if this Vizier action is confirmed, it is no longer temporary”.

[hr]To “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”: D3 of the Concordat lays out a threshold which the Viziers have to achieve to validate their vote. The Viziers must show that they “believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy [the] Concordat”.

The foundation for “reasonable doubt” has been entirely demolished. The Conclave has ruled that the temporary removal which led to the pre-trial and criminal charges had no merit. The Conclave has ruled that the charges were inadmissible, and thus had no realistic reasonable doubt. In a trial, you must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt- and the Conclave found that there was not enough doubt to even begin a trial. The original temporary removal or confirmation ought to be overturned by this reasoning alone.

[hr]To Framer’s Intent: It has been argued that the clause is unclear and thus could be read to conclude the temporary removal is not temporary if confirmed because of intent of the writers. This is refuted, as the Concordat shows it has the capacity to consider full removal powers in Article B, Section 12.

— Begin quote from ____

Section 12) The Magisterium may remove an Arbiter by a 3/4 vote, or the Delegate or a Magister by a 2/3 vote for absence or high crimes. [2013 Am 1, §3]

— End quote

Where the Concordat has explicitly granted full removal powers in other sections, it also is explicitly states a D3 removal is “temporary”. It is clear that if the Viziers were meant to be able to fully remove a Delegate, it would have been considered like the powers of the Magisteirum.

[hr]To Consequences of the Temporary Removal: If a Delegate is to be temporarily removed following D3, for say, acting to destroy the Concordat by suspending the government, the Viziers are in the best place to remove that Delegate away from the instruments of power. This action is temporary, as per the Concordat, but it grants the region time to process the situation.

This time should be used to consider what has occurred and whether the Delegate needs to be formally removed. The Magisterium has the power to fully remove a delegate for high crimes or absence, and since the Delegate is not an immediate threat, the Region can move onto that process and citizens get due process and their rights are respected.

If High Crimes or absence are proven, then the Magsiterium would move forward and remove said criminal delegate.

If High Crimes or absence are not proven and the full removal cannot take place, the Delegate is not a threat and the temporary removal has elapsed- respecting the Concordat.

[hr]To Consequences of a Non-Temporary “Temporary Removal”: If we have 3 Viziers, and only 3 Arbiters can vote in a final decision of the Conclave (facts), the following can happen. Please entertain this scenario which would be allowed under the “non-temporary” temporary removal argument.

A person is elected, but without the support of two of the Viziers and a couple of Arbiters. Were these people to not act in good faith, the Viziers could formulate a story about alleged criminal activity of the Delegate and move forward with their non-temporary temporary removal and get it confirmed by the Arbiters.

The Conclave then examines the charges and evidence, but then rules that there is no merit to the accusations but it does not matter because those 4 people would rather have another person as Delegate and their removal stands despite being a fabrication.

This scenario has yet to happen, but the fact it would be possible under an incorrect interpretation of D3 is unsettling. It is arguing that something that was disproven in court is a completely legitimate reason to remove an elected delegate.

[hr][hr]Solutions

It is examined that, since there is no Magisterium formal removal possible that the Vizier’s temporary removal has elapsed. It is temporary, the original complaint has come to a conclusion, and the Magisterium is unable to fulfill absence or high crimes for a removal vote.

AND / OR

It is examined that the original D3 action or confirmation was unfounded since they have ruled that the complaint has no criminal merit. Thus indirectly invalidating the “beyond a reasonable doubt” qualification for the removal.

AND / OR

The Viziers or the Conclave can voluntarily reverse their action/confirmation on the basis of reasonable doubt established by the Conclave.

2

The Conclave

The Conclave will take the request for an advisory opinion, as formulated by both ASBS and Aelitia.

— Begin quote from ____

ARTICLE II- Advisory Question

2.2.1- Any private citizen may choose to submit a legal question to Conclave for an unofficial Advisory Opinion. This must be done in an approved manner, if specified.

2.2.2- An informal opinion issued by single Arbiters may be posted in reply to this request, but shall not form precedence for any law.
…a. While not forming precedence, a prominent informal advisory opinion may be used as a justification for bringing civil suit or filing an appeal.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

Article D: Viziers

Section 3) The Viziers may temporarily remove the Delegate if the majority of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. This removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium or a decision by the Conclave or the Delegate shall be reinstated.

— End quote

Aelitia’s submission can be found above, and essentially comes down to the point that the phrase “temporary” means that, even after confirmation by The Conclave of the Magisterium, the removal initiated by Section 3 of the Concordat is only temporary.

ASBS has argued, both before the Conclave and the Magisterium, that the phrase “temporary” is to be understood as temporary until a confirmation has taken place. If there is no confirmation, the removal is undone.

Arbiters are invited to post their legal opinions.

I advise all Citizens of TEP to keep this thread civil and respectful.

3

Aelitia, are you honestly going to argue about this? When OF was proven to have imported votes for himself (twice), and mind you that this was decided with only an anonymous TG and an unusual swarm of previously inactive citizens as voters in a delegate election, you were not happy about this.

You actually go past alerting inactive citizens of the region to incite them to vote for you and import votes from elsewhere for the purpose of votestacking. If you will recall correctly, several Delegate candidates in Fall 2014 withdrew their candidacies when it was discovered that they had conspired (more accurately, only discussed) votestacking in another region. If you recall correctly, this is also why I was elected Delegate, because such conduct was considered unbecoming for a TEP legal official.

You were not a fan of OF doing this. In fact, you were checking citizenships to see which were even valid for votes.

Actually, for all we know, OF did import those votes from elsewhere under our noses.

If votestacking in another region is considered conduct unbecoming for a Delegate of The East Pacific, why is votestacking The East Pacific becoming of a public official? You never needed to do that to become Delegate. In fact, this all could have been avoided if you actually trusted the region to elect you Delegate.

Aelitia, you have been an excellent citizen, and a great Viceroy in TEP. You could have become Delegate by trusting the region. If you love TEP, why did you have to import allies from elsewhere to secure a victory? Don’t you realize what this has done to your reputation? Don’t you realize what trouble this has caused for TEP, which acted to remove you out of concern?

By doing this you caused external drama and stress on the region. You showed that conduct unbecoming for other TEP citizens is not at all a problem when it’s you. Sharing IPs is no big deal to you despite how you and BGP scrutinized Davinhia and Butballs so thoroughly. What OF did, you did in equal measure.

Can’t you see what you’re contesting, that you are saying everything you have argued against and stood against in the past is no big deal when you are the one doing it?

Delegacy is not worth that, Aelitia. Frankly, I would have hoped that you knew better.

4

— Begin quote from ____

To “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”: D3 of the Concordat lays out a threshold which the Viziers have to achieve to validate their vote. The Viziers must show that they “believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy [the] Concordat”.

The foundation for “reasonable doubt” has been entirely demolished. The Conclave has ruled that the temporary removal which led to the pre-trial and criminal charges had no merit. The Conclave has ruled that the charges were inadmissible, and thus had no realistic reasonable doubt. In a trial, you must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt- and the Conclave found that there was not enough doubt to even begin a trial. The original temporary removal or confirmation ought to be overturned by this reasoning alone.

— End quote

Disagree. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” was confirmed by the vote of the Conclave at the time of the removal. The Concordat does not require a trial for the actions of the Viziers to be confirmed.

The Conclave has not “ruled that the charges were inadmissible.” The Conclave stated, “After due deliberation, the Conclave has ruled that no sufficient merit is present to warrant a full trial regarding the criminal charges presented in this case.” So, they decided not to hold a trial. They did not vacate the decision of the Viziers or even reverse their earlier confirmation of the Vizier’s action. (http://forum.theeastpacific.com/topic/7003738/1/.)

As to the “Framer’s Intent,” there are a few of us still around and can speak directly to the case. In my case, I was naive to much of the gameplay associated with NS. At one point, I had argued for eliminating endorsement limits and letting the nations simply choose a delegate based on who had the most endorsements. (You find many examples of this simple-mindedness in my posts from 2008, if you want to be amused at my expense.) The addition of Viziers to the Concordat was one of the last pieces to be drafted. We had all the checks and balances in place for the legislature, courts, and executive. We were still nervous about the Empire experience and we wanted another check on the potential for the region being overrun.

Other regions had guardians of one sort or another, so we borrowed the concept and choose the name Viziers. Then we were concerned that we had given the Viziers too much power so we decided to make sure that the removal was temporary until it had been confirmed by the Magisterium or the Conclave. At that point, we intended it to be permanent. There were no other steps added. It was a quick process to keep the Empire from returning and taking over the place.

Now that this power has been exercised, we have work to do to clean up the ambiguous language.

5

— Begin quote from ____

Aelitia, are you honestly going to argue about this? When OF was proven to have imported votes for himself (twice), and mind you that this was decided with only an anonymous TG and an unusual swarm of previously inactive citizens as voters in a delegate election, you were not happy about this.

You actually go past alerting inactive citizens of the region to incite them to vote for you and import votes from elsewhere for the purpose of votestacking. If you will recall correctly, several Delegate candidates in Fall 2014 withdrew their candidacies when it was discovered that they had conspired (more accurately, only discussed) votestacking in another region. If you recall correctly, this is also why I was elected Delegate, because such conduct was considered unbecoming for a TEP legal official.

You were not a fan of OF doing this. In fact, you were checking citizenships to see which were even valid for votes.

Actually, for all we know, OF did import those votes from elsewhere under our noses.

If votestacking in another region is considered conduct unbecoming for a Delegate of The East Pacific, why is votestacking The East Pacific becoming of a public official? You never needed to do that to become Delegate. In fact, this all could have been avoided if you actually trusted the region to elect you Delegate.

Aelitia, you have been an excellent citizen, and a great Viceroy in TEP. You could have become Delegate by trusting the region. If you love TEP, why did you have to import allies from elsewhere to secure a victory? Don’t you realize what this has done to your reputation? Don’t you realize what trouble this has caused for TEP, which acted to remove you out of concern?

By doing this you caused external drama and stress on the region. You showed that conduct unbecoming for other TEP citizens is not at all a problem when it’s you. Sharing IPs is no big deal to you despite how you and BGP scrutinized Davinhia and Butballs so thoroughly. What OF did, you did in equal measure.

Can’t you see what you’re contesting, that you are saying everything you have argued against and stood against in the past is no big deal when you are the one doing it?

Delegacy is not worth that, Aelitia. Frankly, I would have hoped that you knew better.

— End quote

Players in Nationstates literally do this sort of thing all the time, but under the guise of something called families, and then that somehow makes it acceptable. You may not understand how involved I am with TEP, I used to like thinking about this place and actually legislating and getting things done- I wanted to be able to talk about it with one of my closest friends and so he joined.

You accurately point out I did not have to bring in my friend to TEP to win the election. If I remember correctly, My ONE friend’s vote has never made the difference in an election or major decision and thus a sane person cannot reasonably call this “vote stacking”. This has no parallel with the debacle that was Brave Toaster, because that had inter-regional consequences.

You inaccurately draw parallels with the OF issue. OF was suspected of actually campaigning or conspiring to destroy the Concordat- I was suspected of having a friend. There is no telling how many people OF brought in, yet I brought in one and I was forthcoming when it was questioned.

Further, you try to argue about what “importing allies” has done to my reputation. My reputation should speak for itself, yet there was an intensely coordinated crusade against me by numerous members of TEP to slander me here and on NS. There was no reason for admins to be actively arguing NS Administration for my removal from the WA, yet I said nothing until now.

As for Davinhia and Butballs, our cases are distinct and I successfully argued this in the pre trial. They were given the opportunity to prove that they were indeed two players, the opportunity to come back and do so. When this happened, I immediately opened up very private sections of my life to show that we are two people. Our cases are not the same because of that.

As for the election itself, Todd chose to remove himself from consideration. I was a handful of votes behind him, and obviously my friend did not make the difference. Barely days after Todd steps down, I am taken out of the seat and people are broadcasting alleged “impropriety” all over NS as though it is a given. I was disrespected- I have NEVER acted against TEP in my years of being here, and yet everyone chose that time to charge me with criminal activity; barely days after I win an election I was going to lose against the person who had to carry out my temporary removal.

I hope you come to understand where I am coming from, Xoriet. I did not bring my friend in to try to stack votes or “steal” a delegacy, because I do know better. I never hid our alliance, because I knew better. I was forthcoming when questions arose, but unfortunately people felt they should act first, and ask questions later. I am not here to argue about the outcome of the pre trial, or the reasons why someone did something- I came here to make a case to the Conclave about the wording of the Concordat.

6

— Begin quote from ____

Now that this power has been exercised, we have work to do to clean up the ambiguous language.

— End quote

You then seem to agree that the clause is ambiguous about the state of the temporary removal.

I have argued that this ambiguity does not support your application of the clause. The clause explicitly states “temporary [removal]”, and then references “this removal”. The clause does not say the removal switches from temporary to permanent if confirmed; it just says that the temporary removal has to be confirmed.

To read it your way would be to read in words that are not present. If you read it how it is written, it clearly is referring to the temporary removal being confirmed.

7

It’s not ambiguous to me, but it appears to be ambiguous to others, so the language needs to be refined.

Step by step:

— Begin quote from ____

The Viziers may temporarily remove the Delegate if the majority of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat.

— End quote

This is defined as a Vizier-only activity. The Viziers acting alone, without consulting any other governmental function, may take this action. The action is limited to being temporary, because they are acting alone.

— Begin quote from ____

This removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium or a decision by the Conclave …

— End quote

Note that removal is no longer described as temporary. The Viziers are required to get the removal confirmed. They have to act quickly. They only have 72 hours. But they are given two options: (a) a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium, or (b) a decision by the Conclave.

If the decision is confirmed, the Delegate is removed. There is no temporary in this sentence.

What if the decision is not confirmed?

— Begin quote from ____

… or the Delegate shall be reinstated.

— End quote

If the decision is not confirmed the Delegate must be reinstated. There is no other allowance for the reinstatement of the Delegate.

8

Again, that argument reads into something that is not present. This clause refers to “this removal”, and the only operative removal in the clause is the “temporary removal” laid out in the first sentence.

The clause DOES state what happens if it is not confirmed, but it does not state what happens if it is. This taken with the fact it was established as a “temporary removal” all supports the removal as temporary.

9

Okay, let’s establish a few things:

  1. Aelitia’s ‘term’, should he be reinstated, is starting to wind down.
  2. There are two Arbiter’s appointments at stake, Loh and Raven. Aelitia has stated if he is reestablished as the Delegate he will not be renominating them. This conflict of interest, in my opinion, more or less forces Loh and Raven to recuse. Bach is a Vizier and thus a party to this as well, so the case is more or less falling to me. I do not take this lightly, to say the least.

The above means, within due process of law, a decision does need to be made sooner, rather than later. As such, I will interpret Aelitia and ASBS as the major parties for both interpretations of the vizier removal clause, so I do have several questions for both parties. These are only intended to further interpret both of your cases, and I don’t mind you directing questions at each other as long as it’s kept civil. You both are also free to answer my questions to the other party if you feel it furthers your case, as long as, again, all discussions are kept civil. Any citizen of the East Pacific who is a interested party may chime in as well as long as, like I said, all discussion must be civil.

I have discussed these topics informally with both of you to at least some extent privately, if these questions overlap I do ask you restate your opinions here so it’s public record.

ASBS:

  1. If the vizier removal clause was intended to be permanent once confirmed, why is the Magisterium entitled under the Concordat to remove the delegate, furthermore, the Magisterium has a different standard (convicted of high crimes or inactivity) for removal. Could this not be interpreted as the intent was for the Magisterium alone to have the right to permanently impeach a delegate? Why give the Viziers a lower standard than the Magisterium to act upon if both removals would be permanent?

  2. The vizier removal only requires suspicion of acting against the concordat. Would making the removal permanent, regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings, violate the Delegate’s common law right to a fair trial, particularly when the other standard for removing him via the Magisterium is set so high?

Aelitia

  1. If the clause was intended to be interpreted as a strictly temporary removal, why is there no further language dictating how to proceed once the delegate has been temporarily removed?

  2. Does the Conclave in and of itself, in your opinion, have the legal authority to reinstate a Delegate? Particularly given the aforementioned ambiguity of the Concordat on the matter?

  3. If you are reinstated, Do you believe you’re legally entitled to continue your term from the point you were removed, or would you continue your term as if you were Delegate during the time you were removed?

10

— Begin quote from ____

ASBS:

  1. If the vizier removal clause was intended to be permament once confirmed, why is the Magisterium entitled under the Concordat to remove the delegate, furthermore, the Magisterium has a different standard (convicted of high crimes or inactivity) for removal.

  2. The vizier removal only requires suspicion of high crimes. Would making the removal permament, regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings, violate the Delegate’s common law right to a fair trial, particularly when the other standard for removing him via the Magisterium is set so high?

— End quote

All of the checks and balances for the Magisterium, Conclave, and Delegate were written first. The Magisterium’s power to remove the Delegate was based on a situation where there was time to do a reasoned and debated removal of the Delegate. The Magisterial process is not very useful when there are immediate crises.

The Vizier removal of the Delegate was based on the recent (at the time of the writing of the Concordat) experience of the Empire. The writers felt there was a need to have set of guardians or protectors in place who act to protect the region. It doesn’t require a “suspicion of high crimes.” It requires a belief “beyond a reasonable doubt.” We entrust a great deal of power unto the Viziers. They are appointed for life terms. They can be removed, of course, by either the Magisterium or the Conclave.

The Vizier process does not exist to provide for a fair trial. It is the role of the Conclave (or Magisterium) to confirm the decision of the Viziers or it is a temporary removal. The Conclave provided the confirmation of the Vizier action. It might be worth some internal review by the Conclave to determine if the confirmation with a subsequent non-trial was fair.

11

I personally do not want to post here – I have an obligation to the region to do so. I wasn’t going to comment in this thread due to taking the role of prosecutor but I only did that because as a citizen I felt obligated and I was the neutral party.

As a former Arbiter, Magister and Vizier I do have a good understanding of the law and was one of the few remaining members that could be considered a “framer” since I served as one of the Elders during the transition period. So I wish to comment on some of the intentions of the document.

We can look back in the archives at the http://forum.theeastpacific.com/topic/983269/4/#post49457 and the http://forum.theeastpacific.com/topic/983351/1/#post49996 and see it went through a lot of changes and unfortunately we don’t have access to the actual drafting period between the two documents and I don’t remember every detail so I’m not going to comments on the differences between them. They do exist for anyone to view but it’s not clear enough to give what our intentions were.

I would like to point out the intentions of the document with what each branch is given with what I call “removal powers.”

— Begin quote from ____

Section 6) The Delegate shall nominate citizens to serve as Viziers, and Arbiters. If the Delegate fails to nominate an Arbiter before the time frames outlined in Article C, Section 9, the Provost shall exclusively nominate the Arbiter(s).

— End quote

The Delegate was given the ability to nominate citizens to serve as Viziers and Arbiters and also the ability to not renominate Arbiters would be the only indirect “removal power” the Delegate is given over another branch.

— Begin quote from ____

Section 12) The Magisterium may remove an Arbiter by a 3/4 vote, or the Delegate or a Magister by a 2/3 vote for absence or high crimes.

— End quote

The Magisterium was given the power to remove Arbiters and Delegates. It’s pretty clear cut.

— Begin quote from ____

Section 8) The Conclave may remove a Vizier by 2/3 vote for absence or high crimes or a Magister by majority vote.

— End quote

Again clear cut: the Conclave was given the power to remove Magisters and Viziers.

— Begin quote from ____

Section 3) The Viziers may temporarily remove the Delegate if the majority of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. This removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium or a decision by the Conclave or the Delegate shall be reinstated.

— End quote

This one gives the Viziers and the Conclave or Magisterium joint “removal powers” over the Delegate. This is also the only place where the Conclave can have a “removal power” over the Delegate but it has to be brought to them by the Viziers to use it.

I will admit it is not as clear cut as the other “removal powers” but the only way to read it would be to just read it as it was written. The literal definition of “or,” which is defined as, “used to link alternatives.” and that’s what it does. The first part of ADS3 is clear on what the Viziers can do and that it is a temporary measure. Then it goes on in the next part that it needs to be confirmed within 72 hours by the Magisterium or the Conclave. But what happens if it is not confirmed within the 72 hours? “Or” is linking to the alternatives provided and just by reading it and breaking it down it mean “reinstated” is linking to no-confirmation. What it it doesn’t say is that the Delegate is reinstated if confirmed. It doesn’t say the Delegate is reinstated if no trial is held.

If we look at the other “removal powers” intent in the document with ABS12 and ACS8 – it doesn’t give “reinstatement powers” per se. The only “reinstatement powers” that do exist would be:

AAS6: The arbiter could be renominated if put up for a nomination again.
ABS12: The arbiter, delegate, or magister could be renominated, elected or reapply.
ACS8: The magister or vizier could reapply or be nominated again.
ADS3: The delegate could be elected again.

I believe that would be the intention of the Concordant.

12

— Begin quote from ____

Aelitia

  1. If the clause was intended to be interpreted as a strictly temporary removal, why is there no further language dictating how to proceed once the delegate has been temporarily removed?

  2. Does the Conclave in and of itself, in your opinion, have the legal authority to reinstate a Delegate? Particularly given the aforementioned ambiguity of the Concordat on the matter?

  3. If you are reinstated, Do you believe you’re legally entitled to continue your term from the point you were removed, or would you continue your term as if you were Delegate during the time you were removed?

— End quote

The Concordat provides for the full removal of the Delegate through the Magisterium’s the ability to remove the Delegate for “absence or high crimes”. I believe that by considering this ability, the Concordat does provide for a way to proceed after a temporary removal. As I said before, the temporary removal should be used to remove any clear or present danger and then proceed with a Magisterium removal if necessary.

When there are two clauses which refer to some form of “removal” of the Delegate, and one is unequivocal in the finality of the removal, and the other is specifically earmarked as “temporary”, I believe it is clear. Were there no other removal process, I might be persuaded otherwise- however, there is a clear intent shown by providing a temporary versus a final removal power.

The Conclave is the interpreter of the Concordat. While I don’t believe the term reinstate is apt in this situation, enforcing the language as it is present in the Concordat would have that effect. I do not seek for the Conclave to “reinstate” the Delegate, I am seeking for an end to this temporary removal and for correction of the mess that was made over this issue. There are a number of ways to achieve this, which I outlined in my initial post in this thread- many of which are quite simple to undertake.

Finally, the removal is temporary, and it must end at some point. However, the Concordat does not provide for the extension of someone’s term for any reason. Therefore I do not believe that the time lost to The East Pacific without a legally recognized Delegate should be added to my term.

13

In reference to Hobbes’ post above:

I would like it stated that beyond the initial vote to remove Aelitia, I have not taken part in, or give opinions on, any decision making processes etc before the Conclave and the Viceroy is aware that I have recused myself from said events. I’ve also refrained from any public statements or comments regarding these events that could be taken out of context.

While there are many who would give me no such courtesy, I acknowledged sometime ago a history that would cause issues were I to ignore it and decided to step to one side unless actually required.

I was not “forced” to recuse myself. You do not “force” me to do anything in this game and I can count on one hand how many situations I have been in where I was “forced” to do something.

I’m even fine not being renominated, or whatever. I have no emotional attachment to the job. It is a job like any other I’ve held in NationStates, and hardly the first time I’ve held a Court role in a region. I have no attachments to it, I simply done the job, where possible, that I was asked to do by the then Acting Delegate while being mindful of potential conflicts, and problems along the way. I’m less fond of taking risks these days, probably as I’m starting to get old. (My wild-days of NSpolitics are behind me after all.)

The distinction with the removal was simple: The security of the region comes first. Whether guilty or innocent, they could not be in that seat if an investigation was to be held. It is fair to say that in the Conclave, I have the most experience when it comes to regional security, and I know from experience how far south it could have gone. I would have voted in favour of the removal unless the evidence was clear and obviously false. In this case? It was quite the opposite and needed to be investigated. I can’t say that I like how far this had to go, but there was clearly something suspect going on and the risk of it being addressed while Aelitia had the seat… well, that’s the start of nearly every GCR Coup from the dawn of Max. It was not a risk that could be taken.

(To the observers know this: I can’t speak for the Viziers, but the other Arbiters agonised over that vote. My personal history had no bearing on it, and I hope that some of the loudest critics know me well enough to know my personal feelings rarely come into play when the security of a GCR is in question.)

14

Can I post here, I am concerned and I am attached enough to the East Pacific to be considered “loyal” to it?

This case or issue with Aelitia, sets a precedent, doesn’t it? If a decision is taken to reinstate or permanently remove Aelitia and hold a new election, future cases of this nature will be interpreted in the same way.

The wording in the Concordat is ambiguous and the evidence and arguments, for and against, have both merits and doubt in equal measure. The events surrounding this case or issue, bring not only Aelitia’s reputation, but the reputation of the government and the credibility of the system as a whole into question.

It seems that this situation or case against Aelitia will give the Conclave, Viziers and whoever else in the government, the ability to shape the long term political landscape of the East Pacific.

I think that rather than taking the short term ramifications into account alone, the long term ramifications of the decisions that is to be made should be taken into account.

I believe that when you’re making these decisions and interpreting the law, Conclave and others, please take into account the following questions:
(1) Do the Citizens of the East Pacific really want Aelitia as their delegate and will their right to decide – in matters of emergency or otherwise – the person they want to lead them be affected by the decision that is made?
(2) Does Aelitia, when one looks at past conduct and opinions, really pose the threat that would validate this kind of action?
(3) How will this decision affect the reputation and credibility of the East Pacific governance?
(4) What precedents will be set by this decision and what long term effect will they have?

15

So, let’s wrap up here:

I have attempted to contact Loop and FPS as framers but haven’t gotten responses. Given that most of the deliberation was in a Chatzy chatroom, there’s no existing record of it as it was 9 years ago, even if I could get FPS or Loop I am doubtful they can definitively remember what the intent of the clause was. Given this, we only have the two stages of the clause in the draft:

The original draft of Article D, Section 6 as posted by Free Pacific States on December 25, 2008 reads

— Begin quote from ____

Section 6) The Viziers shall be authorized to remove from the region a Delegate that the majority of Viziers agree has acted to destroy this Constitution. This removal must then be made permanent by a 2/3 vote of the Parliament or a decision by the Regional Court; the Delegate shall be reinstated after 72 hours if neither the Parliament nor Regional Court make that removal permanent.

— End quote

The final draft ratified by The East Pacific of Article D, Section 3 as posted by Todd McCloud on January 4, 2009

— Begin quote from ____

Section 3) The Viziers may temporarily remove the Delegate if the majority of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. This removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium or a decision by the Conclave or the Delegate shall be reinstated.

— End quote

As we can see, there is substantial changes in the week or so difference. But what is important to note is what the difference is. I have striked sections that were removed and highlighted in red the sections that replaced them. Only sections of note rather then aesthetic changes are shown.

— Begin quote from ____

The Viziers shall be authorized to remove from the region may temporarily remove a Delegate that the majority of Viziers agree has acted to destroy this Constitution. This removal must then be made permanent confirmed by a 2/3 vote of the Parliament or a decision by the Regional Court; the Delegate shall be reinstated after 72 hours if neither the Parliament nor Regional Court make that removal permanent. confirm it.

— End quote

It does read a bit differently then the finished clause but I did my best to merge them together into a cohesive read to prove my point.

What was changed between the original draft and the final, ratified draft?
-Any mention of the word ‘permanent’ or the removal being as such was removed.
-The word ‘temporary’ was explicitly added.

The point I am getting to is: Without anything contradicting to disprove this, it seems evident that FPS’s original intent when making this clause was to make the removal permanent. However, other framers in the Chatzy room seemed opposed to this, so the clause was changed to clearly indicate the removal was, indeed, temporary. It is my opinion that if the intent of the framers was indeed for the removal to be permanent after confirmation, then they would’ve kept at least a large extent of the original clause instead of gutting every mention of the removal being permanent from the clause. Could there be other factors at play when this was changed? Possibly, but any records of it are lost to history so I am forced to work with what is the most likely scenario, which is that the Framers of the Concordat intentionally changed the clause to make it temporary, but did either forgot or failed to fairly dictate how this clause would be implemented. Perhaps it was a last minute change that wasn’t properly implemented, but it’s one we have to deal with now.

The issue however is that perhaps it was forgotten about, or it just slipped, but there is absolutely no protocol or language in the Concordat for how and when a temporary removed delegate should be reinstated, my guess of which being it was a change made at the last minute in the Chatzy drafting room which wasn’t properly fleshed out. In any case, I am forced to interpret it as is and this leaves me with the two following recommendations:

Recommendations in closing:

  1. Aelitia shall be returned as the Delegate of the East Pacific for the remainder of his term.
  2. I urgently call upon the Magisterium to rewrite this clause to clarify intention and protocol.

So ordered,

16

I will not be commenting further on this question. I think Arbiter Hobbes has answered the Advisory question. Arbiters Raven and Loh, I presume, won’t be posting any more either.

I believe the topic can be regarded as closed.

I guess the Aelitia Delegate is simply to be regarded as having resumed.

The Magisterium is already in the process of discussing changes to the clause in question, so the issue stands to be solved for the future soon.