Galen's argument

Dicusssions and court proceedings for the High Court of Britannia.
Post Reply
Galen
Fanatic
Posts: 171
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Galen's argument

Post by Galen » Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:36 pm

OOC Note: The following is Galen's argument, submitted as a Friend of the Court to the High Court for the Beauvina v. High Council case, to be heard on 1 July 2010. If you wish your character to have seen it, they may have. They would have seen it in one or more of the following ways. One is that Galen in no way intended for this to be a secret, and if at some point he was asked in idle conversation if he intended to say anything for the hearing, he'd have a copy of this made and sent to the interested party. Another is that, sometimes, such Friend of the Court memos are made part of a Court's public record. And, finally, Galen has paid a printing shop to do a small run of this argument as a legal monograph. If asked why he'd do this, Galen would be glib and say he did it to satisfy his own monstrous ego. This might be the real reason, it also might not be, but that'd be Galen's immediate response. If you or your characters like exploring the intricacies of in-character law, enjoy the read. -Galen's player


I have reviewed the relevant documents, and have come to one inescapable conclusion.

There is no way for the cow lady to win this case, in law, on the facts, in equity, or in Virtue.

My argument shall consist of four points.

1. There is no reason to believe that she has been lawfully appointed or elected to the office. Indeed, there's specific reasons to believe the contrary.

2. There is no reason to believe that she is eligible for office under the terms of the Fourth Constitution. Indeed, there's specific reasons to believe the contrary.

3. There's no reason to believe the credibility, along any vector, of those who seek to put her on the Council.

4. This matter is by definition a purely political question, and as matter of standard jurisprudence, courts have, with excellent reasons, tended to shy away from purely political questions.



Point One
---------------------------------------------
Per a recent court decision, invalidating the Fifth Constitution as unconstitutional, the current operative constitution of Britannia is the Fourth.

As far as I was able to ascertain, the court published neither a transcript of, nor an official ruling on, the case wherein the Fifth Constitution was invalidated as unconstitutional, I am therefore forced to rely upon my memory for that.

After some searching, I located a copy of the Fourth Constitution, here:

http://www.tomesofsosaria.org/hcb_charter.asp

This was not easy to find, by the way.

Article XV of the Fourth Constitution provides for taking seats on the High Council pursuant to "election" or "appointment."

So far as I can determine, the only methods provided for in the Fourth Constitution for assuming a seat on the High Council are those described in Article XV.

"Appointment" is not defined, nor is an appointing procedure specified. The only possible reasonable interpretation of this clause, therefore, is "appointment" by some kind of city government or city officials. If anything else was meant, different language would surely have been used.

The people who claim they want the Cow Lady as their Councilor, who number only 3 as far as I can tell, who first began to appear at the Council Meetings on 25 May 2010 so far as I am aware, made no claim at any point to be from any government. Indeed, the only claim they made was to be farmers who were simply elated at the cow lady's ability to chase away an evil wizard with cows. (More on this story later.)

The following excerpts from the 7 June 2010 High Council meeting are, I think, telling:

[[[Ayeleich Howz]: Some of us in Jhelom, the past two weeks, we been talking.
[Ayeleich Howz]: I'm here with my pals and associates Bhen and Jhemima.
[Ayeleich Howz]: *waves*
[Ayeleich Howz]: Hi Bhen, hi Jhemima!
[Ayeleich Howz]: Look I'm up here!
[Ayeleich Howz]: *smiles*
[Ayeleich Howz]: Anyhow, we are coming to you to ask Miss Beauvina represent the city of Jhelom!]]

If they were representatives of any government capable of having lawful appointment power, they would surely have said so then, when it was most important, and most appropriate.

While these people may suddenly find themselves claiming to be government officials now, there are good reasons for doubting that claim. Specifically, their apparent illiteracy and lack of obvious intelligence, and their apparent lack of warrior skills (as no self-respecting warrior would require much help from cows with any evil wizard who was weak enough to be chased away by cows).

Jhelom is the City of Warriors, and of the Virtue of Valor, and the government of Jhelom would in all likelihood be a government of warriors, and indeed on the shard I come from that's exactly how it works. The "Captains" of the Pit Fighters in effect run the government of the city, sometimes there's a Mayor that they appoint.

As to their illiteracy and seeming lack of intelligence, what I find quite telling is the timing of their approach to the High Council to seek the cow lady's ascension. They approached immediately upon Pab taking the oath of office; anyone of any literacy whatsoever is capable of conducting a marginal reading of a High Council transcript, and noticing quickly that almost every meeting ends with a call for interested citizens to address the High Council.

Thus, though they may now find it convenient to claim to represent the government of Jhelom, their demonstrable lack of warrior skills and seeming illiteracy and lack of intelligence suggest otherwise. Most telling, of course, is that they made no such claim when it would have been the most logical to do so.

By definition, appointment is not an issue, as there's no good reason to think these parties have power of appointment. The cow lady could not plausibly have been appointed legally to the office of Councilor.

We therefore turn to election.

There is no mention of an election at any point during the High Council transcript when the alleged farmers of Jhelom. Indeed, the same excerpt from the 7 June 2010 High Council meeting is quite telling:

[[[Ayeleich Howz]: Some of us in Jhelom, the past two weeks, we been talking.
[Ayeleich Howz]: I'm here with my pals and associates Bhen and Jhemima.
[Ayeleich Howz]: Anyhow, we are coming to you to ask Miss Beauvina represent the city of Jhelom!]]

The words are not subtle. This is neither an election nor an appointment that is at issue, but a suggestion made by someone without obvious connection to Jhelom other than his or her word, and even then there is no reason to believe that the speaker actually speaks for Jhelom. Indeed if you look over the excerpts of their speech, it's VERY hard to stretch their words to indicate that they're actually speaking for the city. Just people, just like me, making suggestions.

While their suggestions should be listened to, perhaps, there is nothing in language, law, or equity to suggest that a citizen's suggestion is equivalent to an election or appointment, under the Fourth Constitution or any written constitution I'm aware of.

---------------------------------------------------
Point Two
--------------------------

We then arrive at the issue of eligibility for a High Council seat. There is no reason to consider the cow lady eligible to hold the office of Councilor under the Fourth Constitution.

Article IX, Section A of the Fourth Constitution states, in whole:

"Councilors of the High Council are expected to be active among the citizens that they represent, and make themselves publicly available to address the needs and concerns of the community to which they have been charged."

While the language may be construed to refer to AFTER election or appointment, doing so would fly in the face of Article XII, which is called "Requirements of Duty" and explicitly, as opposed to implicitly, refers to after election or appointment

Even if one takes Article IX as also applying to after election or appointment as Councilor, it would seem prudent, lawful, and useful, to also take this Article as a description of the duties of the Councilor, and to take ability to perform these duties as a sign of eligibility for the office. Someone incapable of performing the duties would by definition not be eligible to hold the Office.

The public, undisputed reputation of the cow lady suggests she is wholly incapable of fulfilling these duties.

And the public, undisputed reputation of the cow lady suggests she is wholly incapable of performing these duties, and hence is by defintion not eligible.

Her reputation includes, but is not limited to the following.

Firstly, She thinks she can talk to cows, which your own ruling of 3 December 2009, in the first cow lady versus High Council seems to cast severe doubts on. The following excerpt from this ruling is quite telling:

"Beauvina claims the cows are indeed speaking to her, but no one else has come forth to back this claim. Do we then have faith that they do indeed speak to her? In truth, it seems that she converses with them freely, but whether that is true conversation, a product of empathy, OR SYMPTOM OF SOMETHING ELSE [emphasis is mine], we cannot readily be certain."

The clear suggestion, from your own pen, Justicar, is that she is likely quite out of her wits.

Secondly, she constantly tries to disrupt High Council meetings with her cows, which your own ruling of 3 December 2009, in the first cow lady versus high council case explicitly says she cannot do unless the Council allows it somehow, or unless the cows explicitly learn how to talk such that others can understand her. At the very least, this means the cow lady has been officially decreed a disruptive influence. As no reasonable person can find any reason to think that her claims the cows wished to learn about the governmental process could in any way be plausibly true, this means she was making an unreasonable claim, or was being intentionally disruptive. Neither suggests she is capable of performing the duties of Councilor, and indeed both would by definition suggest the exact opposite. And, hence, she would also by definition not be eligible to hold the office.

Thirdly, she filed and brought to court a largely baseless defamation of character lawsuit which, according to your own unpublished ruling would set a deadly precedent if she won, including, you stated, your filing a similar lawsuit against me. As there can be no reasonable basis for a defamation of character lawsuit by you against me, your clear implication was that the cow lady's suit was unreasonable. Indeed it's hard to call it an implication so much as a clear statement, on your part. Your own ruling leads inescapably to the conclusion that the cow lady is either wholly detached from reality, or intentionally used the courts in an unreasonable way. Neither suggests she is capable of performing the duties of Councilor, and indeed both would by definition suggest the exact opposite. And, hence, she would also by definition not be eligible to hold the office.

Thirdly, I have read that years ago she attempted an armed takeover of the City of Yew, using cows, and claimed that the cows owned Yew. This claim can only be either intentionally subversive, or reflective of a general detachment from reality. Neither suggests she is capable of performing the duties of Councilor, and indeed both would by definition suggest the exact opposite. And, hence, she would also by definition not be eligible to hold the office.

This is her public, uncontested reputation. Nothing here suggests she is capable of performing the duties of Councilor, and indeed both would by definition her reputation suggests the exact opposite. And, hence, she would also by definition not be eligible to hold the office.

----------------------------------------------
Point Three
-----------------------------------------------------
We then arrive, as we must, at the issue of the credibility of the alleged farmers, even as citizens, let alone as governmental officials, as they will doubtlessly claim to be once they catch wind of this argument.

Evidence of their illiteracy and apparent lack of intelligence was cited above.

Some foolish folks might think of farmers as stupid and/or illiterate, and indeed the way these folks behaved was as crude stereotypes of farmers held by non-farmers.

Anyone who's actually worked on a farm or knows any farmers, or has been a farmer, knows better. Farming, even subsistence farming, requires a combination of skills that is simply not consistent with stupidity. Stupid farmers might have existed, I suppose, but not many of them, if only because the stupid ones would tend not to last for very long. The combination of skills required of farmers is vast, ranging from agricultural, to mathematics, to business, to, in some cases, politics. A great legislator of the past on the world Lord British came from, named Roosevelt I believe, once said that his favorite colleagues were lawyers and farmers, because those were the smartest. Indeed, he held open scorn for legislators who came from any other profession.

Further detracting from the petitioners' credibility is the story of how the cow lady is alleged to have first come to their attention.

This story was related on 25 May 2010, and also stretches credibility WELL past the breaking point and is either a delusion or a fabrication or both; it is simply not possible for it to be reality.

Though the cow lady has been seen keeping boura pets as well as cow pets, and appears to have the abilities of an animal tamer and is a semi-competent battle mage, from the transcript it would clearly appear that there was little involved in this alleged incident save for her cows.

The relevant excerpts, from the 25 May 2010 Council meeting, are:

[[Jherry of Jhelom: ennyhoo hes all tawkin bout rooinin our blasted crops
Jherry of Jhelom: an she aw came up
Jherry of Jhelom: an sicced her moo cows on im.
Bhen: you shooda seen him run!
Jherry of Jhelom: an they dun made him hit thuh road
Jherry of Jhelom: thed all bitin his bottuhm]]

I can think of no circumstances under which an evil wizard would be capable of destroying crops but would be incapable of fighting cows.

A real farmer would know the difference between a cow, a boura, and a bull. A real farmer would also know that cows would not be capable of fighting an evil wizard that's capable of destroying crops. Even stampedes can be effectively dealt with through area effect and field spells. A few well-placed energy fields can turn even the wildest stampede into a meat grinder, as the cows push continually against a barrier they can only vaguely see.

The petitioners' not knowing this by definition means either they are not actually farmers, in which case they misrepresented themselves. Or that they for whatever reason misrepresented the facts.

Neither the story nor the story tellers show any sign of credibility whatsoever. To allow Councilors to be appointed under these circumstances is to bust open a dam through which all manner of foul, self-interested, or unqualified individuals may flow.

-------------------------------------
Point Four
------------------------
As a matter of traditional jurisprudence, courts have tended to shy away from purely political questions. The High Council interpreting parts of the Constitution that relate almost solely to who can hold the office of Councilor and under what matter is surely by definition a purely political question, and thus not a matter for the Courts whatsoever.

-----------------------------------------
To review:

1. There is no reason to believe that an election occurred, or that her appointment was lawful, or indeed was an appointment at all. Indeed on both counts, there's specific reasons to believe the contrary.

2. There is no reason to believe that she is qualified for office under the terms of the Fourth Constitution. Indeed, there's specific reasons to believe the contrary.

3. There's no reason to believe the credibility, along any vector, of those who seek to put her on the Council.

And,

4. This matter is by definition a purely political question, and as matter of standard jurisprudence, courts have, with excellent reasons, tended to shy away from purely political questions.


Winning this case is, quite simply, not possible in factual merits, nor in law, nor equity, nor Virtue.

End this now, Justicar, before the institutions of our civilian government lose what little credibility they have.
0 x



Court Courier
Citizen
Posts: 22
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Galen's argument

Post by Court Courier » Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:39 pm

OOC : Just a quick clarification... All rulings regarding cases can be found in the Court's library. Recent ones are out on the stone tables, the rest are filed in alphabetical order by subject.

The Court does not typically post transcripts.
0 x

Galen
Fanatic
Posts: 171
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Galen's argument

Post by Galen » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:38 pm

Court Courier wrote:OOC : Just a quick clarification... All rulings regarding cases can be found in the Court's library. Recent ones are out on the stone tables, the rest are filed in alphabetical order by subject.

The Court does not typically post transcripts.
I'm a little surprised by by the out-of-character response.....Wasn't this entire proceeding largely based on the idea that response to this matter should be entirely in-character?

Despite my out-of-character discomfort with this whole thing, I went out of my way to provide an in-character response. (Given that the ultimate decision is largely an argument against mine, I'd think it's fair to say I provided, if indirectly, a good portion of the RP tonight.)

The only out-of-character part of my post was saying how your characters could have seen the document if you wished them to....The OOC response makes me think this was taken OOC despite my good faith efforts.

*shrugs*

Oh well.

-Galen's player
0 x

Court Courier
Citizen
Posts: 22
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Galen's argument

Post by Court Courier » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:52 pm

Galen wrote:
Court Courier wrote:OOC : Just a quick clarification... All rulings regarding cases can be found in the Court's library. Recent ones are out on the stone tables, the rest are filed in alphabetical order by subject.

The Court does not typically post transcripts.
I'm a little surprised by by the out-of-character response.....Wasn't this entire proceeding largely based on the idea that response to this matter should be entirely in-character?

Despite my out-of-character discomfort with this whole thing, I went out of my way to provide an in-character response. (Given that the ultimate decision is largely an argument against mine, I'd think it's fair to say I provided, if indirectly, a good portion of the RP tonight.)

The only out-of-character part of my post was saying how your characters could have seen the document if you wished them to....The OOC response makes me think this was taken OOC despite my good faith efforts.

*shrugs*

Oh well.

-Galen's player
OOC: Galen, your arguments were taken in-character, and were addressed in-character, and I did not take them as an OOC issue.

The reason for my response was simply that you indicated that transcripts had not been published (those transcripts are in an out-of-game forum, and no, I don't regularly post court transcripts); and that the ruling regarding the fifth constitution had never been published (it has been published, and has been sitting on the stone tables in the library for weeks now).

My response was plainly and simply to clarify those aspects of your post.

If you have some other issue with this, please, let's talk, but I did not look at this as an OOC thing any more than you did when you started your post in an OOC manner. I was simply clarifying those two specific items. In no shape or form was I going to address these specific things outside of the courtroom before the hearing.
0 x

Galen
Fanatic
Posts: 171
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Galen's argument

Post by Galen » Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:38 pm

Court Courier wrote:
Galen wrote:
Court Courier wrote:OOC : Just a quick clarification... All rulings regarding cases can be found in the Court's library. Recent ones are out on the stone tables, the rest are filed in alphabetical order by subject.

The Court does not typically post transcripts.
I'm a little surprised by by the out-of-character response.....Wasn't this entire proceeding largely based on the idea that response to this matter should be entirely in-character?

Despite my out-of-character discomfort with this whole thing, I went out of my way to provide an in-character response. (Given that the ultimate decision is largely an argument against mine, I'd think it's fair to say I provided, if indirectly, a good portion of the RP tonight.)

The only out-of-character part of my post was saying how your characters could have seen the document if you wished them to....The OOC response makes me think this was taken OOC despite my good faith efforts.

*shrugs*

Oh well.

-Galen's player
OOC: Galen, your arguments were taken in-character, and were addressed in-character, and I did not take them as an OOC issue.

The reason for my response was simply that you indicated that transcripts had not been published (those transcripts are in an out-of-game forum, and no, I don't regularly post court transcripts); and that the ruling regarding the fifth constitution had never been published (it has been published, and has been sitting on the stone tables in the library for weeks now).

My response was plainly and simply to clarify those aspects of your post.

If you have some other issue with this, please, let's talk, but I did not look at this as an OOC thing any more than you did when you started your post in an OOC manner. I was simply clarifying those two specific items. In no shape or form was I going to address these specific things outside of the courtroom before the hearing.
I thought it was clear, however, that the snipes about the Constitution not being widely available, and about transcripts not being published, were also done in-character; I'm still confused as to why you'd reply out-of-character to parts of my post that were clearly in-character.

My out-of-character issues with this whole thing were described elsewhere; I've mostly kept my vow to not address the issues again, as I think the one post covered my position well-enough. Repeated attempts to just say the same thing over and over again would serve no purpose save self promotion.

-Galen's player
0 x

Court Courier
Citizen
Posts: 22
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Galen's argument

Post by Court Courier » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:04 am

Galen wrote:I thought it was clear, however, that the snipes about the Constitution not being widely available, and about transcripts not being published, were also done in-character; I'm still confused as to why you'd reply out-of-character to parts of my post that were clearly in-character.
OOC - I'm not sure what you are confused about. I responded because it appeared to me OOC that you had no idea that the ruling about the Constitution had been published in game, and because you were expecting court transcripts that are never available in game. If you're posting in character about a lack of posting them out of game, that doesn't really make sense. In either case, I was simply letting you know that the reversion had been published in game and that the Court doesn't regularly provide transcripts; in essence, providing you information that apparently you didn't know about the in-character issues you were complaining about.

Sure, I could have responded in character by saying, "Galen, I note that you believe the High Court has not published the ruling on the Fifth Constitution -- it has been published and has been available since the ruling was decided. Also, I'm uncertain why you are expecting transcripts of the trials, because we don't employ a courtroom stenographer to provide such a service."

Is either of those responses better than the other?

My out-of-character issues with this whole thing were described elsewhere; I've mostly kept my vow to not address the issues again, as I think the one post covered my position well-enough. Repeated attempts to just say the same thing over and over again would serve no purpose save self promotion.
OOC - I'm curious that you would confuse clarification with self promotion. Discussion is often born of trying to clarify positions, stances, ideas, and issues.

Again, I'm uncertain why my OOC response to clarify what I thought to be a misunderstanding on your part is as offensive to you as it appears to be.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “High Court Open Forum”