A Plea to the SC.

I am asking as a member of the RA and Co-Founder of The City of Neualtenburg for the SC to investigate the need for Impeachment Hearings against Claude Desmoulins. I believe his actions as the leading member of the RA have been leading to an Anti-Constitutional power grab of the RA amounting to a potential Coup D'tat and overthrow of Neualtenburg's founding documents in favor of an RA led Government responding to popularist rule.


Kendra Bancroft
SDF Party Leader
Head of N'burg Chamber of Commerce

Minor correction. As my understanding is, you are one of several founding members of THIS Neualtenburg.

I wasn't aware there was more than one Neualtenburg.

If the SC doesn't respond, there's always the next elections. For when are those scheduled? It might be time for a regime change.

~Ulrika~

If I remember correctly, the RA rules for its own proceedings allows any Neualtenburg citizen to propose bills and constitutional amendments, and encourages those citizens to put those bills in the forums for discussion. This is what Claude has done.

The proposed amendments that are being discussed currently are still *under discussion* the RA hasn't even voted for them yet let alone passed them. In fact, it is unclear that *any* of the proposed amendments will pass, given Kendra's opposition to them.

I fail to see where Claude has violated the constitution or acted illegally. Proposing bills (including constitutional amendments), discussing them, and voting on them is part of the RA's ordinary duties.

*Disclaimer* I am presenting here my personal opinion and do not speak for the SC.

If you seriously want the SC to investigate this you should provide a bit more information than "I believe his actions... have been leading to..." (anything).

By what means do you know what is in Claude's mind? Is your belief that he is perhaps embarked upon a certain course enough to start a trial? If you have actual information that Claude Desmoulins is planning/plotting to grab power or is acting anti-contitutionaly simply present it.

I could just as well say that I believe that Walt Disney is planning to come back from the grave to kick his dog (again).

It has about as much factual weight.

In many ways, Anzere Neualtenburg and Neualtenburg as of now are very different entities.

For one, Linden Lab isn't paying a chunk of the bill.

Sorry, Kendra, but with the mockery and parody going on so many threads in these forums, are you actually serious about what you mean?!?

If you're serious about that accusation, please send an email to the SC stating your request for the SC to "investigate" (we'll have a meeting next weekend anyway), although, to be honest, a RA member cannot start a proceeding to impeach another RA member... not even if the RA member asking for that is a "co-founder" or has any other special honours endowed by either the City or its citizens. We're all equals here before the law.

Discussing the Constitution openly and freely, and proposing amendments to it, is part of the political process of Neualtenburg, and certainly an expected duty of any members of RA.

Ulrika, FYI, this term only ends by the beginning of July.

I'm stating it publicly for reasons of transparency.

I'm not starting procedures myself BECAUSE I'm also an RA member and cannot.

I'm asking that the SC look into the matter because I feel it Unconstitutional for the leader of the RA to seek to change the Constitution, as the RA isnt Constitutionally able to effect change to the Constitution save THRU the SC.

The proper procedure would have been for the RA to call an emergency meeting of the SC to discuss a need for the SC to change the Constitution.

My accusation is that the current RA leader seeks to strengthen the role of the RA branch by undercutting the Constitution thus devaluing both the Constitution as writ and the role of the SC to protect it.

It is my right as a member of the RA and the leader of one the opposition Party to call on the SC to either investigate Impeachment of this RA leader --or to make a Constitutional ruling.

My mention of being a Co-Founder is not meant to confer to me an special legal status, but it is to remind the SC how seriously I take this transgression of the intent of the Founding Documents.

The checks and balances of the three branches was very carefully measured for many monthys and the SC needs to take the actions of the current RA's publicly stated goals (in these forums) to lessen the strength of the SC.

My "plea" to the SC is a plea from an opposing Party member to fulfill it's Constitutional duty and halt this power grab of the RA --or face Impeachment hearings of its own, which I intend to bring in full measure if they do not perform their function to our City.

Linden Lab never paid any of the Anzere Bills. Rather we paid the same as we pay now, minus the initial purchase of land. All tier was still paid by the citizens of Neualtenburg: Anzere and there is no mention in any documents of Neualtenburg being a new entity.

I am stating that his recent proposals themselves are Unconstitutional and are not the business of the RA to even raise on it's own.

The RA is an adminstrative and legislative body representing the people. It is not a body that writes Constitutional Law.

rolling eyes notwithstanding.

The SDF has always been committed to the People's interests and the Founding Documents. Recent actions being attempted by the RA to strengthen itself as a Governmental Branch are not actions that I believe serve the intent of the Constitution, The Founding Documents --OR the interests of The People.

I do not see where it is the RAs business to vote on Constitutional amendments. It might be the RAs business to discuss the Constitution with the SC.

There is a huge difference between passing law and rewriting the Constitution.

I have been corrected, then.

This does not change that, in the most literal way, the Constitution of Neualtenburg was invalid the very day we started as a private sim because it was not designed for that purpose; that's why we've been doing all that cleaning up of it, you recall? A great many references made no sense under the new setup, yet it worked because "everybody knows what was meant".

Clearly, everybody DIDN'T know what was meant.... and still do not; the "founding documents" are still wildly inconsistent, and damned near incoherent even at this late date. (I'll let Claude handle that one; he mentioned quite the amazing one to me that I had missed.)

I'm not even supposed to have a hot tub.


And yet, we seemed to have been making progress to making a Neualtenburg that was worth being in. You can't even claim ignorance - was that a pod-person Kendra saying "aye" at every RA meeting? And yet, just as soon as Ulrika decides she needs a little drama in her life despite retiring "permanently" from Second Life, you jump right to her side and act as if you had absolutely NOTHING to do with this, "oh no ma'am, I was just an innocent bystander"!

I have little use for liars, and it is no insult, prejorative, or slander to call Ulrika one; it is honest and simple fact. I have little more use for those who associate with liars. And I will not stand back and let two liars destroy a group I care about.

I'm done playing nice, but unlike you, I shall play honestly. I believe I shall begin by installing a floating hot tub.

I welcome an investigation.


If this is indeed the case, why does Article I, section 6 state in part:




If the RA has no business, as you say, voting on amendments, why does the constitution require a 2/3 RA vote on constitutional amendments?

Under Article I, Section 7 -- Powers of the RA:

"The RA can amend the constitution with a 2/3 vote." (2nd bullet point under "In regards to the Philosophic branch"

Kendra, I believe you yourself have voted on several constitutional amendments, and have not voiced this concern before.



There *is* a huge difference in passing ordinary law and consitutional amendment, which is one of the reasons why the referendum amendment was suggested. Making constitutional amendments should be made *much* more difficult than what is allowed currently.

My understanding was that the RA put amendments before the SC --they did not vote them in without acknowledging the SCs right to veto it. That is what we are agruing about is it not?

and I have little use for people who discount Ulrika's input merely because she is Ulrika.

And no --it wasn't a "pod-person" Kendra. If I voted "aye" on what is considered any re-writing of the Constitution it is with the thought that we were simply voting to put a proposal before the SC for a change --not that we were actually voting for a veto-proof change.

I'll let your "liar" comment stand. I wont dignify it with a response. If the rest of the Neualtenburg community agrees with your assesment of me I'll consider it advisable for me to resign my seat in the Government.

I have no wish to serve under the assumption that I have other than the citys best interests at heart.

My impression was that it was 2/3 to ratify an amendment put foward by the SC. Not 2/3 to rewrite the Constitution without SC approval.

If I'm wrong I'd say that was a serious flaw, and one I'm not sure I agree with --but if that is infact the law --then I withdraw my request to the SC.

Kendra — while certainly it's within your rights to ask for the SC to "investigate", let's just step back a bit and consider the whole thing in perspective.

First, the DPU has a public agenda — one that is rather pragmatic and available for everyone to read — and part of that agenda included Constitutional amendments, which they are proposing within the RA for the vote.

The citizens who voted for the DPU naturally expect these amendments to be carried out. As far as they are within the boundaries of the constitution and the founding documents, it's the citizen's will to have their elected representatives to bring the issues they proclaimed during their campaigning to be actually implemented. This should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Secondly, discussing a proposed constitutional amendment is not, by itself, an issue, even if that discussion proposes amendments that might have the effect of making the system of checks and balances more unstable. What the DPU has encouraged is an open discussion of these issues. Neualtenburg is still a free country, and the right to discuss the Constitution is guaranteed by the founding documents. There is no problem here.

Thirdly, it is, actually, the RA that proposes and approves Constitutional amendments — and not the SC. I think you're slightly confused on this point. The SC has absolutely no power at all to change either the Constitution or the Founding Documents. That was never "intended" and it's not what the Constitution says! It's the RA that proposes and votes upon three types of bills: legislative bills (laws), revenue bills (budget), and constitutional bills (amendments to the Constitution).

The SC's job is and always has been the same: to ratify the bills, or to veto them on the grounds they're unconstitutional or in violation of the founding documents. But the SC has no job in approving the bills — either legislative, revenue, or constitutional.


There is also a huge difference of your interpretation and what is not only written in the Constitution, but has been common practice in Neualtenburg for over a year now: it's exactly the RA's business to vote on Constitutional amendments, and they have successfully done so quite often! Only this term, ten amendments were made. Ten! I wonder how you failed to miss them, since they were all previously discussed (both in the forums and in the RA meetings, some of which you've certainly attended), and voted upon (they need a 2/3 majority to pass, which included your vote), and finally ratified by the SC (who didn't veto any of them).

I utterly fail to understand how you can now claim publicly that there is a "huge difference between passing law and rewriting the Constitution" — since rewriting the Constitution is what amendments are, after all.


I will personally accept that as your personal opinion only, Kendra, and if you wish to propose an amendment to the Constitution to that effect, just subject a bill to the vote. But until that bill is passed (which would be actually the reverse of what we have now) — the RA is exactly the body which writes the Constitution.

Fourthly, may I remind you that the SDF does hold 2 seats at the RA. This means that if it's the SDF's will that any of the Constitutional amendments do not pass, all they have to do is to collectively vote "no" on the proposed bills to amend the Constitution. There is really no place to create forum drama for that. Also, I fail to understand why the sudden need to start the discussion about "impeaching" a leader of the opposition in a case which is so easily and trivially settled by simply saying no.

Just vote no, Kendra. And ask Seldon, the current SDF faction leader, to do the same. Among you, you have the power to prevent any Constitutional amendments, if that's your political agenda. Your vote is powerful enough to prevent that to happen, if you wish. Nothing else is required.

As your request for investigation was meant in all seriousness, that item will be added on the SC's agenda for the upcoming meeting on Saturday, 4 PM SL time, and you'll be welcome to present your claims of the grounds for impeachment there.

Ill withdraw my request for investigation by the SC, as the SC has now finally answered my question.

Apparently I am wrong on this Constitutional issue, and I am glad that a member of the SC has at least seen fit to finally interpret some Constitutional Law for me. Thank you.

Accusing me of creating forum drama is off base, and I would have expected better from you, Gwyn.

I am growing troubled, however, that opposition to the leading Party is greeted as inconvenience bordering on sedition. I won't trouble the Government anymore with my input except on votes. Clearly that is more amenable to you all.

Sorry, Kendra, I just posted earlier while you had indeed written in the mean time that it was your impression that the SC proposed Constitutional amendments, and the RA ratified them with a 2/3 majority.

It's exactly the other way round!

The RA proposes (and votes) Constitutional amendments, and approves them by a 2/3 majority. The SC has no saying in that; the SC has just a veto power if those Constitutional amendments are in violation of the founding documents (or somehow contradict the Constitution itself).

Even the notion that the SC "resubmits" bills to the RA is actually wildly misinterpreted. Actually, any citizen of Neualtenburg can submit bills to the RA! Yes, that's exactly the way it works. Just because most bills — but by far not all! — are "usually" submitted by RA members, the Constitution allows any citizen to do that!

We had bills proposed by non-members of the RA regarding the banking system, for instance. This is part of our tradition — giving any citizen a voice in the Government. However, the final vote to approve that bill is by the RA.

This naturally means that the SC members, since they are citizens, can submit bills as well. Or the Guild. Or anyone!

I can perfectly understand from your earlier posts that this is clearly not what you thought how things work in Neualtenburg (although I still don't understand how you missed it!). To remedy it, I'd like to encourage you to propose any changes you deem necessary, and submit them as bills to the RA for voting. I don't think the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the RA on Wednesday is closed yet, so you've probably got time to submit those bills.

Mind you, the "tradition" that the RA discusses bills openly on the forums, and has all sorts of people commenting them, including members of the SC, is one way that we manage to sort out things "informally" (as opposed as through a discussion & vote on the RA) to try to get a compromise among all before the RA puts the bill to a vote. It also avoids the unnecessary unpleasantness to have the SC suddenly veto unexpectedly a bill just because they didn't like the wording. Actually, when the RA is in session, it's quite usual that the RA knows beforehand when a bill (probably modified since it was first publicly discussed) will pass. This speeds up a process, by pushing the whole of the discussion to the forums first.

I guess that this is what made you think that sometimes it "looks" like the RA is accepting suggestions from the SC once in a while, before the bill on a Constitutional amendment is actually voted. But this is just an entente cordiale, a gentleman's (and -woman's ) agreement. The RA is not required to publicly discuss anything before they meet. However, the internal procedures of the RA (which is not required to be a "law"; each branch is able to define its own internal procedures) say: "Posting the content of the bill on the Neualt forum is also strongly suggested, so that public opinion can be gathered." All past RAs have adhered to this internal rule — even before the internal procedures were not formally adopted.

I hope this clarified this issue, and made also clear that at the next RA meeting, if you disagree with the proposed amendments, the SDF has the option to vote no to any constitutional amendment they disagree with.

My apologies if I was too dry on my previous posts — that was not intended to cause offense, it's just my style of writing when it's 5 AM and I should have been long asleep.

Thank you. As stated I will from now on only be giving my input in the form of yay or nay votes. It is my hope that this will prevent me from being openly called a liar on the forums. A personal attack that should infact be addressed by the moderators.

You're right — and I was wrong. I really do apologise; I completely misunderstood you thrice on this thread, and that was indeed off base. A request for clarification is, and should never be, "forum drama". My comment was totally out of place. It was unfair and rude. It won't happen again.

As an excuse I'll just say I'm really getting tired — time to go to bed and wake up tomorrow with a clear head...

Opposition to the leading party is never an inconvenience — rather the contrary, the lack of opposition is always troublesome! Fortunately, in this case, the leading party does not even have an absolute majority in the RA, much less a 2/3 majority, so opposition by simply voting "no" will work.

BTW, if you are in a zone that allows both modern and medieval builds your ability to have a floating hot-tub was never in question. It's perfectly legit in any area that isnt zoned for medieval only.

Certainly when I was Gildemeister, Id have had no problem with it.

But then --I might be lying mightn't I?

What passion! I see this thread as a great political piece, a call to attention for others to take notice at a perceived leadership problem that is getting lost in discussion and bureaucracy. You were made for the RA.

I too, despite having left the City, still share this passion to protect the ideals on which the city is based. It was what made me come back despite the fact that I knew I'd have to endure sophomoric snarky posts and name calling. Yet it's worth it to know for now I'm serving and promoting the ideals around which my life is centered and the city is based.

So rally the SDF and woo the MPP and see if you squelch this madness in the RA before it even makes it to the SC.

~Ulrika~