TITULIA CITY (TNC Politics) | Vice Pres. Reformer (SDP) has leaked e-mails between Pres. Wilberforce, himself and LRP Leader TJ Norton regarding an Associate Justice post in the General Court, Titulia’s highest judicial body.
According to him, a corrupt bargain was made by the LRP and the previous McVicker administration and when the new administration refused to participate TJ went on the attack.
The deals surround Atty Gen. Reg C Ambrose, Former Pres. Dennis McVicker and LRP Leader TJ Norton.
It seems Atty Gen. Ambrose was poised to become the next Associate Justice, but Former Pres. Bill Money was tapped instead – with his confirmation ultimately being rejected, probably as a result of these or prior e-mails.
Full e-mails below:
T J Norton
2 Dec 2010 - 01:39
Just to let this Liberty House know .. a bipartisan arrangement was organised with the previous administration for Reg Ambrose to become Associate Justice. As this would vacate the AG's position, Renee Buchanan and Cara Dellahunty have both indicated they would pleased to serve.
Given Reg's legal service to the Republic, his credentials as a legal profressional in a jurisdiction and the way he's handled the department - I would submit this would be a huge win for your administration and an easy confirmation.
If there's anything else just drop me a line.
Cheers,
T. J.
LRP President
Will Wilberforce
2 Dec 2010 - 10:54
Tom
I'm surprised by this actually. My concerns are that this is contrary to information I received prior to the election.
When you discussed the issue with Reformer you expressed an interest in seeing Reg remain as AG in the new term and I was fully supportive of that as I think he has been a good one. He was then asked if he would serve as AG again and he accepted.
Neither of you mentioned anything about this arrangement and I put his name forth to remain as AG. It would have been appropriate to bring this issue up at the time instead of proceed with the notion that he was committed to being AG again.
Incidentally and just for your info the first communication I received from Dennis after taking office was to request that he (Dennis) be nominated for the Associate Justice post.
I will have to consider this issue further.
T J Norton
2 Dec 2010 - 21:53
I would need refreshing on the conversation with Reformer because when all hell broke loose over the last 2 terms due to Gerry's rants .. Reformer and I have actually spoke very little outside of the cabinet room. I can certainly not recall any specific conversation with Reformer on judicial vacancies and I will check my archives for this information.
If you are relying on third hand information from Reformer who may have got this from Dennis, I would suggest this is a case of Dennis being dishonest. When we spoke on the phone approx. 2 weeks ago Dennis said it was a done deal. D has long indicated he wants on the court and he agreed that he would be next up after Colonel's term expires providing Colonel didn't wish to continue on.
Let me brief you on what was decided:
It was agreed with the former administration that Reg will be the next Associate Justice. When Colonel decided to call it a day, Reg would be the next Chief Justice and Dennis would be nominated for the Associate Justice vacancy caused by Reg's promotion.
Clearly someone is out to cause an issue with us because the suggestion there was even an issue with this wasn't even apparent until reading your reply. If this situation has been re-negotiated without the LRP's attendance, I must now consider consulting my members on how we will respond to this.
Politically speaking, we have ample numbers if required and all it takes are a few phone calls. Let me assure that first off. I enclose a copy of the LRP's October 2010 Conference Report that will provide you with our policy on Justice and Public Law Reform:
http://nortilus.com/lrp/oct2010conf.html
I refer to the policy adoption:
LAW AND ORDER
Justice: Candidates for the Court and Department of Justice are selected from the membership of the Bar Association of Titulia, to promote the respect of the experiment in reflecting how a real nation would select its legal professionals for such positions.
Now as to what might occur.
If the party is to consider a non-member of the Bar or a non-lawyer for the bench .. this will require an alteration to our policy. Prior to its adoption all judicial nominations were conducted on a conscience vote .. but obviously that position was altered at the October Conference.
Before we go further .. have the discussions you need and let me know what you glean out of it. Based on the information you have given me already .. I would suggest that someone's leading Reformer up the garden path and this can easily be squashed.
Cheers,
T. J.
T J Norton
2 Dec 2010 - 21:54
P.S. Not to sound paranoid .. but this might explain why Dennis has been avoiding my phone calls since.
Reformer
2 Dec 2010 - 23:56
TJ,
Here's the part of the email you sent me regarding Reg:
"I would like to see Reg continue as Attorney General .. if for no other reason .. he's more than qualified and it can't be denied he's taken an exceptionally even hand while heading up the Department of Justice. I would be interested to see what Will has to say about that before continuing."
After I got this I emailed you back and told you:
"I spoke to Will. He's out Christmas shopping today so hasn't been online. He's more than happy to have Reg remain as AG and in fact would be grateful to him if he were willing to continue. That position really needs to be/stay non-partisan."
The chain of emails goes on further and we covered a few other issues.
So basically prior to the end of the election you told me you would like to see Reg remain as AG and I then passed that on to Will. He said he agreed and I then reported that back to you. Additionally Reg told Will he would like to remain.
I have to agree with the point Will made here. At the time you told me you'd like to see Reg remain AG the whole thing with moving Reg into the open Assoc. Justice spot had already taken place. I don't understand why you didn't just tell me that instead of stating you'd like to see him remain as AG. I also don't understand why Reg wouldn't have said the same thing. It would have been just as easy for either of you to have said Reg wants to be an Assoc. Justice. I believe that probably would have been a reasonable request as well as he's clearly qualified.
Now we learn about this deal that was made with Dennis who to no one's surprise has now tried to grab the post for himself. And I've actually had no communication with Dennis about this as the last thing he asked of me was when he was vetting potential nominees thinking that the post was open during his term. But then the mistake was realized and nothing else was ever said by him to me about it.
I think this could have been handled a lot better and honestly I feel like you were not completely forthcoming with me.
T J Norton
3 Dec 2010 - 06:14
Reformer,
I can understand where you might see that but to be straight there's been miscommunications galore about this. My explicit understanding was that we were discussing Executive appointments. Therefore I stand by what I said that at no time you and I discussed judicial appointments. I don't believe there is any error in saying that because it's true.
In any event .. I've managed to FINALLY get a hold of Dennis and this is what has come of it.
Reg has agreed (although understandably pissed off that he's been screwed around with this) to stay on as AG. Note that this applies to what Reg wants to do and not the party. Not for nothing but this is important to know .. Reg didn't seek out the vacancy .. it was my urging to Dennis to make the offer.
The LRP's yet to be discovered reaction has the makings of something else entirely. Renee has indicated she will back the alteration but only if the Government supports a tactical retreat from the situation. You should both understand that this has brought embarassment to Reg as Dennis offered him the job then Dennis disappeared. Note that this doesn't include the Biggs term debacle .. that was factored in. Eventually, Reg was to be nominated and the original arrangement - honoured.
I am yet to speak to a fair few of the caucus and I will do what I can to quell any flames. Being as frank as I can .. given that we've all been made idiots out of this I wouldn't be surprised if some in the rank and file made an issue of it. To be sure .. they'd be right to do so.
In order for me to have some options on the table and assist in an effective and face saving tactical retreat, is the Government prepared to publicly stand by Reg IF some entity decides to score political points out of this? He's a great bloke and has been a loyal and hard working AG in different administrations .. I'd hate for him to jump ship over being embarrassed this way.
This is a good solution that solves both of our problems. Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
T. J.
Reformer
3 Dec 2010 - 12:08
TJ,
There are several issues I'm not clear on here. What tactical retreat is Renee looking for? The current administration has not been involved in this issue so there is nothing to retreat from.
What is there to publicly stand by Reg on? Will already re-nominated him for AG. The public is unaware of the appointment deal (for lack of a better term) as both Will and I were so I fail to see where public embarassment would come in to the equation. He's not being attacked by the public nor will he for any reason I can see.
Both Will and I have already stood by Reg by renominating him for the post he agreed to hold. There has been no action of this government to show anything accept support for him thus far.
Will Wilberforce
3 Dec 2010 - 13:14
I wish either you or Reg had just said he wants to stay AG and then be considered for the AJ post when the nomination is available. That would have been a lot better disclosure of the full situation.
I don't think you did anything sneaky though and I don't want to imply that.
Additionally I'm not sure that i would support this policy about requiring a justice to be a lawyer. Some of our past justices in Titulia who have not been lawyers did a fine job and in the US there is the same policy. Additionally some of our most well respected and revered Supreme Court Justices were never lawyers and were instead former Governor's etc. This is contrary to the statement in the policy that it is how a real nation does it.
If that is to be the LRP policy for supporting a nominee I understand that is fully within your rights to do however I doubt it would be a policy I would adopt. I will think on it further though.
T J Norton
4 Dec 2010 - 05:03
It's an LRP policy debated and adopted at the October Conference. The view was and continues to be that in order to prevent abuse of judicial power any candidate who is a lawyer would have sufficient skill to interpret the constitution and apply it to a case dispassionately. The other plus is in agreement with the bulk of the citizenry who want to see the Titulian system of Government and democracy taken more seriously. Since a non-lawyer would never be considered for the bench in the real world .. this goes hand in hand with that.
Where Dennis has demonstrated some insight into being capable of this there is some concern that he wouldn't be able to understand how to apply all of the law to the case instead opting only to apply selectively. That's what we call legislating from the bench on this side of the world and leaves the bench open to a growth of bias.
As far as Reg goes .. I want it made clear that I have no ill will towards this Government. For now I will play it by ear but the right wing is advancing and I that's why I wanted to contain any future situation before it developed.
There's one thing worse in politics than combatting the bad PR side of a truth or a lie - that's a half-truth.
Reformer
4 Dec 2010 - 13:01
Are there any other citizens left in Titulia who are attorney's and not in the LRP with the exception of the colonel? This policy would seem to have the effect of guaranteeing the LRP court seats.
T J Norton
5 Dec 2010 - 05:06
On the contrary .. it has only been in the last few months when the majority of attorneys in the LRP outgrew the number of attorneys Titulia-wide. Added to that .. only Renee, Reg and James (formerly LRP prior to taking seat) are members of the Bar and admitted to the court to practice law.
Scud, Manhaton, Colonel, Tvarivich, Money, Leggett and myself were the only declared legal talent in the Republic - each declared by the court to have legal credentials. None of them (unless you count me) were ever in the LRP and in fact 5/7 of them have membership in or at the least close ties to the Linardist Party.
So I suppose the argument that any selection process proposed to date favours one party is with all respect moot because under the LRP's policy a person's affiliation is specifically relieved from the equation.
Reformer
5 Dec 2010 - 14:32
I was referring to those currently in Titulia as obviously no one who is no longer participating would be nominated. That includes Scud, Manhatton, Tvarivich and money has bascially left except for the occasional sign in.
Of those with legal background that would be eligible at this time it would seem it's all LRP members.
T J Norton
6 Dec 2010 - 06:40
Is that the case? That's news to me. I was under the impression that others have since come along and declared their talents for use. Something for the legal camp to look at.
For my part I support the efforts of the legal community to grow. Colonel and James Matthews have put in significant effort to building up the legal talent in the Republic and even though it initially fell on deaf ears .. it now appears to be working in the newer days of Titulian life with a far more interested population.
I think that's key to remember here. While the physical numbers may have dropped off .. the acitve we have show deep passion for Titulia and are making for an engaged citizenry. There is large talent across many areas of politics, government, business, society and life in general. Not everyone can be on the court and naturally that should be left for the legal profession. Accountants be accountants .. politicians be politicians .. etc.
Reformer
6 Dec 2010 - 11:22
It seems to be the case. It goes back to my original question. Is there anyone left (active) who has a legal background other than LRP members and the Colonel who is already on the bench? I do not know of anyone.
It would be great if the community would grow and add more legal professionals however we have to deal with what we have not what we might have.
T J Norton
7 Dec 2010 - 03:30
Maybe the Government could continue the research I started and ask citizens to come out and declare their talents or expertise? Worth a thought.
Will Wilberforce
7 Dec 2010 - 11:27
Tom,
Good idea.
However, in this particular instance I have received communication back from Biggs and he is interested in serving another term. I feel it's best to stick with him for now so I am re-nominating him today.
T J Norton
8 Dec 2010 - 03:24
As it is your constitutional decision to nominate, the legislature will consider. I doubt there will be an issue as it preserves the status quo without any radical changes.
I would say you might hear some objection from our friends on the right .. as ineffective as they may be on numbers it could make for a long news cycle in Republic discourse.
Reformer
8 Dec 2010 - 12:02
I support Will on this one. Biggs has been fine and the Chief Justice expressed a desire to see him stay.
The J boys need something new to "write" about anyway. I've followed Will's lead and have stopped reading their papers. If they want to alienate themselves with yet another group they'll attack Biggs but at some point they are going to run out of enemies to create.
T J Norton
9 Dec 2010 - 03:30
I'm not fond of the Chief Justice's double standard on judges. When I approached him for advice on nominations he said it was the Executive and Legislature's role to decide. Why he is now offering opinions is strange.
Reformer
9 Dec 2010 - 11:41
It's a little different when one is dealing with an incumbent vs an open spot. Stating that someone has served well and letting them remain in a position would be fine is different than rendering an opinion on someone who has not served prior.
Will Wilberforce
9 Dec 2010 - 14:29
Yep. That's basically how my brief communication with him went. I just felt keeping Biggs in place made the most sense because I wasn't enitrely comfortable with the whole McVicker-Ambrose arrangement. As I've said before I don't think either of you did anything wrong I just wasn't comfortable with the level of disclosure involved.
T J Norton
10 Dec 2010 - 01:36
I don't agree with either take. Colonel has a bad habit of changing positions depending on the tenancy of Liberty House and this is where people get edgy with the judiciary. I like Biggs as a person but I wasn't particularly fond with him as a judge. His best service has always been in private sector development and recreation. Then again .. I can think of worst names so for now we'll deal with what we have.
Oh and Will? Either you're satisfied that I was open with you or you're not .. can't be like Julian and have it both ways. First you said you thought no one did anything wrong then in the second breath you raised a disclosure concern. No one hid anything .. at least to my knowledge. After our convos on this I even called Dennis and straightened this out. Reg was justifiably pissed because he was approached by Dennis then got screwed around.
Suffice to say .. in the future when there are political conversations on court noms I want an LRP member in the room. I don't believe that other parties weren't consulted because you would need to assure passage before the nom got released. We got over this hurdle but I want it made clear that such issues won't be occurring again.
Reformer
10 Dec 2010 - 02:40
TJ,
If you have an issue with Colonel's habits talk to him about them. That has nothing to do with this administration and neither Will nor I have any control over what the Chief Justice chooses to comment on. If you and the LRP don't want Biggs then vote against him. That's how the system works.
You can believe what you like but neither Will nor I spoke to any other member of a party besides you. I'm sorry if you don't buy it but that is the truth. I see no attempt here to have it both ways. Again wether or not Reg is pissed or not has nothing to do with this administration as we were not part of the deal nor were we told about the deal till after the fact. If Reg wants to be pissed at anyone be pissed at Dennis for making a deal that was not his to make.
I also don't buy your argument that Will is trying to have it both ways. Saying that he didn't think you did anything shady is not the same thing as saying there are still no disclosure issues. I feel exactly the same way. You and Reg both should have mentioned it when the issue with him staying on as AG came up. That would have been full disclosure instead of the only partial disclosure that either of us received.
Apparently you are used to a different way of doing things because neither of us have discussed nominees with any of the parties prior to their nominations (with the exception of Reg as AG so actually the LRP is the only one that has been involved at all).
I'm also not sure what to make of your last sentence. Is that some sort of threat?
T J Norton
10 Dec 2010 - 09:58
There you go again .. had to fuck it for yourself. Enjoy your term in office, Mr President.
Reformer
10 Dec 2010 - 11:26
TJ,
Gerry was right. Psychopath is probably the right term for you. Bi-polar actually because you always follow this same pattern. You go from supportive to attacking in one foul swoop over some minor disagreement with another person.
I'm done trying to deal with you as a rational human being because you just aren't. Will may be more patient than I but i've had enough of your crazy.
Have a nice life.
Will Wilberforce
10 Dec 2010 - 12:25
Guys,
This is going nowhere. Let's move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment