Court Case 1: Term IV

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Nimitz no attack on your integrity was meant, I apologise if seen this way.

However I feel this is being badly handled, there are posts all over the place in several threads relating to this case, posts which to my mind are unwelcome.

Seriously the Court system should not be allowed to be used by any single minded individual, I as a citizen have absolutely no idea who raised an issue why they raised it in the first place ! all i see is mud slinging abound in the forum !

A formal process of charges etc should have been made before any of this happened, otherwise its hard to see just whose being called to task here and for what exactly !

Also though I accept I should have asked to speak, I will not respect any court that seeks to gag those who make cases against it and the Court needs to remember its a public service and is as bound by the law as any of us !

[RobWorham]

Thankyou Nimitz,

My points to be raised are many and varied, so I will start by attempting to answer Coeur's question.

i. Firstly Coeur, as you no doubt remember, the original resolution was conducted right at the end of Term III, while you were still MOD and I was a MOF and a MOD nominee. Now a new government is in power, with new ideas, a fact you have yet to deal with. Even if specifics were posted they would hardly be binding for the new government ministers.

ii. Do you really expect government ministers to fully expose all their plans for public scrutiny? Are you suggesting all future resolutions must provide a turn by turn breakdown of the military plans for any pending military action? This request is both unrealistic and unreasonable, and I think you, of all people, know it. If we are to expect all future actions to be put under microscopic scrutiny by the masses we can look forward to a game pace slower than will be bearable. The citizens of Concordia have voted for their ministers to represent them and they may revote every month if they are not happy with said Ministers performances.

iii. "The best laid military plans do not survive the first contact with the enemy" - an oldy, but a goody. Again Coeur, you of all people should recognise the wisdom of this quote. While your good self and Marshall Ruby led us to many momentous victories against Kublai (with cease-fire / tech extortion (call it what you will) breaks ) can you honestly say, with hand on heart, that you did not have to modify your plans along the way. Where can this be accounted for in the original Resolution without boring the pants off everyone with provisos for every eventuality??? If I could have safely pressed our advantage and finished off Frederick in one go I would have done, but you would have been the first to comment about loss ratios etc. if I had lost too many more of our brave boys.

iv. If you are looking for examples of our intentions since the original resolution please feel free to peruse the various turn chat logs and posts that have been made since then. In fact you could go one better and ask one of your fellow judges who was present at a private chat with myself and two other government officials. The issue of a cease fire before the total erradication of Frederick was raised and promoted by the majority at that chat, and although he expressed a desire to spare Fred from extinction, he had no objections to a healing/re-organising cease fire period. If you, or your judicary were so concerned about this cease fire phase you have had more than enough time to raise the point. Why wait until we entered the cease-fire period to try to ensnare us in your political machinations??

That about covers all the points I wish to make regarding Coeurs question. But while I have my digits warmed up nicely I would like to comment on one other issue.

v. Nimitz, if you intend to keep order in this court, may I humbly suggest you keep your junior justice in order first. Sensationalist and defamitory postings in political party threads by so called impartial Judges are both unnecessary and not befitting someone in your positions. It is hard to take this thread seriously when one of the Judges is behaving in an unprofessional manner. "People who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones" or some such quote would be one to ponder in this instance.

Once again, thank you Nimitz for giving me the opportunity to respond to this question. Now, if you will excuse me, I will retire to my barracks to make plans for the imminent resumption of war!!!

[couerdelion]

I have no further questions

[Nimitz]

Ok my turn now I have a question for the government but first just a little tidbit for rob.

Rob you need not have asked me to speak if you were responding to the question as it was addressed to the government in general.

Now for the question.

While public opinion is important its not one of the conciderations of the court, but as you said the public was heavily in favor of the the war did you think that you might just cover the bases and poll the public for the pause and resumption?

Also as another question do you think setting a group of objectives in the a res for the war to complete and and saying the war is still in effect till achieved unless changed in another res would be to burdensome on the gov and if so why? IMHO we would have avoided this all if that had been done.

[Smellycowsquid]

I'll be back Monday. Sorry for any inncovience.

[RobWorham]

While both your points have some validity to them, I think you are missing the whole point of having elected ministers as representatives for the citizens of Concordia.

The citizens of Concordia, in their infinite wisdom, have elected not only the President, but all the ministers and all the judicary. The only un-elected position in the government is that of Vice President, which is chosen by the President. We have been elected to represent the best interests of Concordia for a pre-defined period of time (1 month for President and Ministers / 3 months for Judges). If during that time we (the elected governors) feel the need to commence military actions against a rival civilization the Constitution states that we need to start a resolution to canvass public opinion as to whether they feel the sacrifices that must be paid for such actions are worth the rewards that such military actions may bring.

How we decide, by careful planning and tactics, to bring about the successful conclusion of said military action are the domain of the powers that be. It is neither desirable, nor necessary to disclose the details of the tactics of war in minute detail. It was, and is, in the best interests of our Concordian civilization to take time out at the mid point of our war with Frederick to rest and reorganise our battle fatigued troops. Liberating three cities in such quick succession was taxing to our resources, and a period of redeployment was a priority. It is in the nations best interests that this period was conducted while being safe in the knowledge that Frederick would not launch any surprise attacks, or exploit any gaps in our defences. We could have conducted this phase while still actively at war, but I am sure you will agree this would be a foolhardy and irresponsible action which would not be viewed kindly in the eyes of the populace. That we managed to part Frederick of 160gp was also to the benefit of the citizens of Concordia. If Frederick was foolish enough to think that we wouldn't finish what we had started then more the fool him.

In my eyes, and those of the vast majority of the vocal citizens of Concordia, this is all part of the same resolution. That it is a different phase is neither here nor there. Might I suggest that this is a basic tactic of warfare, and indeed sports. Imagine if you will a game of football (soccer). In a tight game, one side achieves superiority and scores late in the game. While the teams tactics for the game may have been to be on the attack, they may now choose to go on the counter-attack or even defensive. The team manager needs to re-organise his team so calls for a substitution, or if none are available, one of his players will get 'injured' and the physio will come on. While there is a pause in the game the manager is free to re-organise his team without fear of the opponent overwhelming his team. I see no difference in these everyday tactics and those employed by the Term IV government this term and the Term III government (of which one of your Judges was MOD) last term against Kublai.

To answer your second question I would like to refer you to my previous answers to Coeurs questions. Briefly, I have two points.

i.The resolution was carried out in Term III. Do you expect the Term IV government to be bound by the desires of the previous terms ministers? In this case there were a few ministers who were present in both, but some had changed ministries, while others were filled by new representatives.
ii.Objectives change, plans change, needs change. War is not a rigid mechanism, it is both fluid and continually changing and a government who doesn't respond rapidly to these changes is doomed to a future similar to Fredericks. Tying a government into a rigid framework is again, in my opinion, undesirable and unnecessary.

Instead, may I suggest that if any of the citizenship feel that a military action has run its course and should be terminated, then the onus is on them to start a resolution to bring about that effect. This attitude is simulated in the game by war wariness and so should be reflected in these forums by a resolution for peace, and not a resolution for the continuation of war.

Thank you once again for your patience Supreme Justice Nimitz

[Nimitz]

Well I will now move to open questions for the government. If anyone has a question for them on the case then please post asking permission to ask. If no one has any questions within 24 hours the court will adjourn and deliberate and then render a decision.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Ok can I speak ?

One Question for Judge Couerdelion;

When you formally address this Court do you do so as a Justice or as Lionheart the reporter ?

I think we all know the true answer to this already, it is clear from the many slanderous marks you have been leaving around this land that you are unfit to be a judge !!!

I move that this case should be thrown out and Justice Couerdelion be stripped of his robes and cast to the mob to dish out whatever justice they feel appropriate for one who abuses his position so, I also suggest we allow our elected ministers to be allowed to get back to their real jobs, running this nation rather than having their time wasted here by having to answer to trumped up charges !

[Nimitz]

I have had to deal with previous situations where one of the sides of a case didn't like the fact the court was sticking its nose into what they felt was not their business and tried to prod the court out. The court did not roll over then and will not now.

Motion to dismiss Denied

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Hmm may i point out to you im neither one side nor the other in this case ! Im a citizen who sees it for what it is !

You would do well to discipline your juniors if you desire your court to be taken seriously !

[Nimitz]

Well since we have nothing else court will now ajourn and the court will deliberate and render a decision.

[RobWorham]

Any chance of that decision soon???

It has been three days since you retired to make your decision.

[Zoid]

The Supreme Justice is too busy campaigning for president!

[MMC]

Which proves him unfit for either post .

[Nimitz]

Nice try MMC. The court is working out the finner points we agree on the general decision but need to get to an agreement on the wording of the opinion.