Hello Magisters, I am here today to nominate @theclockworkvixen as an Arbiter. When Merlo left the position, Folly was the first person to express interest in becoming an Arbiter. Folly is genuinely interested in the government of TEP, and I believe becoming an Arbiter is a logical next step for them. They work very hard as a Deputy Provost, putting a lot of time and effort into the role, proving their dedication. If given the time, I believe that they can be a great Arbiter. This is why I would like to nominate Folly to be an Arbiter.
What is your legal analysis of the 2022 ConCrisis ruling?
Due to time constraints (i.e. work), I’m gonna have to hold off on this until I’m free (either tonight or tomorrow morning), but could you perhaps link the original ruling so I could review it when I have the chance?
Don’t worry, I will get to this in due time, I’m just giving you notice that it won’t be done in the next few hours
Good nom. Support.
…ignoring these past few months… 
Hey Folly, do you intend on running as delegate in October?
I’ve said in Discord that this might have to be the first Delegate Elections that I’ll have to pass over, as it wouldn’t be fair to the Conclave and the incoming Delegate for me to be Arbiter for one month and then immediately desert my post.
From what I can understand, the Amended Concordat was ruled to be illegal as it claimed to “repeal and replace” the Concordat which was standing at the time. The reasoning behind this was that the Concordat of the time did not have a legally acceptable or viable method of performing such an act, despite the Magisterium vote and the referendum vote passing.
Additionally, with that single amendment being ruled illegal, it rendered all future amendments that were built off of that amendment to also be illegal, which would have, as I read it, resulted in the Concordat being reverted back to the 2019 iteration.
After reading the Judicial Review in its entirety, I can say that should the proper procedure been followed and the JR had been responded to within ten days, we might have been living in a different TEP than we are now, and I’m glad things went the way it did with the decision being overturned.
If this isn’t the kind of answer you hoped for, I apologize, as I don’t particularly have much experience in the judiciary. Legislature is where I’m used to, but a change of scenery is nice.
I’m specifically asking if you agree with the initial decision, not a summary of what happened.
Oh :wheeze: my apologies.
Technically I did answer your question, then:
But yeah my thoughts on the original ruling are… complicated. Like yes everything checks out (from the limited knowledge I have on the subject - remember, I had basically just left NS when the whole thing went down) in terms of legalities, but something like that would have severely changed TEP, and I don’t think I’d like to be in any timeline but this one (despite all the IRL stuff happening)
Hopefully this is a bit better!
So, to be clear, you agree with the ruling’s legal argument?
I can’t say I disagree on the matter when the legal facts are right there.
I’d say it’s more of a reluctant acceptance than an agreement. Like “yeah, they’re right, but I don’t like it”
I respect your honesty, forthrightness, and patience with answering my question and relentless follow-ups, but I unfortunately cannot support the nomination of an Arbiter who agrees with the legal determination of the Concrisis.
I believe the ruling there was far from legal fact, and, with respect, I don’t believe you’re confident or familiar enough with the Concordat and laws of TEP to make independent judgments which may contradict a legal narrative being pushed by another, even if that narrative is purely subjective interpretation.
I do believe you are loyal, trustworthy, eager, and dedicated, all very good qualities, but I believe what I’ve highlighted to be as important, if not more, than those qualities when considering a candidate for the bench.
Thanks for the confirmation Folly. Time to move to more substantive questions.
You previously motioned for a repeal of an OGO with no evidence.
This is concerning, especially for an Arbiter whose lives would revolve around judging evidence and interpretation of laws.
What would you say about this?
I have to echo Aiv’s worry here. The Concrisis ruling is basically TEP’s Dredd Scott. Not simply because of the result, but because it was never in the Conclave’s power to take that case in the first place. I hope you can see that.
I didn’t say I agreed with the ruling, but I can see how my wording could have implied that. Once again, I apologize. I would say I’m more divided on what to think, and I wish I could provide reasons as to why I feel this way.
However, I respect your own honesty in saying that I may not be the right fit for the judiciary as things currently stand. Even if I lack the experience and knowledge now, I hope that through being confirmed and serving as an Arbiter I can gain the relevant experience and knowledge. Whatever the outcome of this nomination is, I will accept it, as it would be improper of me to do anything else.
Oh my god I totally forgot about that thread. I’ll go lock it if it hasn’t been done already, as it’s basically been gathering dust at this point.
I will admit, it was stupid of me to open that thread without evidence already being prepared, and I can see how that would not fly if this were to happen in a court environment. I suppose I just saw the discussion going on in Discord and was like “hey, I should do this” without thinking all the way through.
As for your question… I think I’m gonna need you to elaborate a bit, if you don’t mind me asking.
Yeah it’s fine, I mainly wanted to see your reflections on that topic. It’s good to know that it wouldn’t fly in a court
I would like to motion this to a vote.
I second this motion.