Hello everyone, I am here again to nominate @Merlo to be an Arbiter. As I said in my previous post, during his Delegacy Merlo has proven to be loyal and dedicated to TEP and the people within it. And because of the new Arbiter opening, I would love for Merlo to be nominated for this position. I have contacted Merlo and he agreed to be nominated.
As a question for Merlovich, what is your legal analysis of the 2022 ConCrisis ruling?
For public reference, I have gotten in touch with Aiv to gather further information on the concrisis, namely the relevant thread(s) and a summary. I am working off of what I’ve seen in the original judicial review thread, and an assortment of jumbled discussions and retellings. An unbiased and straight-forward retelling/breakdown of events (to my knowledge) doesn’t exist and makes researching this topic after-the-fact quite difficult.
Given this, and my lack of presence when the events transpired, as well as my (until now) lack of involvement in the judicial branch of The East Pacific, it’s difficult for me to make a legal analysis of any real depth, as such I can only offer a brief summary of my thoughts.
It seems to me as if the Conclave found themselves within a lose-lose situation, and no conclusion they reached would have been met with pleasure from all angles. From my understanding, I believe I would have concurred with the decision of the Conclave to render the February 2020 amendment illegitimate, and uphold the July 2019 Concordat. This seems to follow the law as it was written, which I believe to be wholly important. Again, this was not an ideal situation for anyone, and I believe the Conclave handled it suitably, albeit a bit clumsily in hindsight. Notably, I think the failure to acknowledge Article 2.1.1 of the Standing Orders was a comical oversight, and further complicated an already difficult process.
I apologise if I’ve misinterpreted or misconstrued any elements, please bear in mind the relatively sparse and confusing fragments I’ve got to work with when piecing this event together.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you Merlovich for your answer. I appreciate your honesty and integrity. I believe you to be of the proper strength of character for service in the judicial branch but I strongly disagree with your legal perspective on this matter and therefore, it’s fair to assume I will disagree with other legal judgments of yours.
I would like to motion this to a vote.
Seconded