Report on Scientific Council Hearing Meeting on Potential Abuses of Power

Just to be clear.

EFFECTIVE MAY FIRST: I am renouncing my citizenship, my government posts and removing the presence of Altenburg from within the city/state of Neualtenburg.

My deeds and land in Neualtenburg I gift to the city in return for the rights to retain my IP and private buildings and inventory without a bitter war.

My intent is to scout out a suitable location to establish Altenburg as an independant entity from Neualtenburg.

And just when we became neighbors... Don't ya love me anymore?

That sounds both fair and equitable. Frankly I'm sorry to see you go, but hope you'll drop by and post to the forums occasionally. Will you retain forum moderator rights? This could be great, NB will have to "Keep up with the Joneses'".

BTW I might be able to help you with mortgage financing on new land or a new sim...Just a thought.

I'll be writing Jeska to remove me as a moderator of this forum. I'm trying to leave Neualtenburg in as friendly a way as possible, while still letting the reasons I'm leaving be recognized.

I'm undecided on this one....

When I read Gwyn's summary post of the SCs deliberations, my initial reaction was that this was sensible and proportionate action. I strongly disagreed with the suspension of Ulrika from potential citizenship for the duration of the Dean's term when I thought the Dean was selected for life, I am less concerned about a six month suspension though. Especially when this is not accompanied by any restriction on access to the sim, citizens and forum and where there has been a clear abuse of power by a non-citizen (Ulrika) in censoring a citizen's legitimate posting on the N'burg forum.

Ulrika has raised some valid concerns though and I think these need to be examined. Immediate questions that come to mind are: Was the procedure followed by the Scientific Council in keeping with the Constitution and Laws? Did those accused of abuses of power have the opportunity to argue their case? Are the sanctions meted out proportionate and fair? I am currently undecided on those questions and will need to consider further. The SC members put a lot of time and effort into reaching these decisions though and their conclusions cannot be dismissed lightly.

It does not help us one iota, however, to have this discussion aired on the SL Forums for every naysayer and N'burg-knocker to have a go at our city and bray "I told you so" and mock our experiment in virtual world democracy. I don't know what the posting (now moved to Notices and Well Wishes) was meant to achieve but I think it was entirely counterproductive.

In addition, threats of secession are entirely unhelpful. There is no provision for secession in the N'burg Constitution for starters. But there is an agreement we all enter into not to deliver departure ulitmatums when things don't go our way. It would be in the spirit of the Constitution if the threat of secession were to be withdrawn and the dispute over the SCs judgement to be settled by lawful means.

an ultimatum would consist of my saying "If things don't go my way, I'm leaving."

I'm saying "I'd like to leave."

BTW Aliasi because you have your deed, you are still a citizen. I also think you're a fine, upstanding citizen. What exactly prompted you to step down from your posts? Excess drama?

There is no "settling" a ruling of the SC, by legal means or any other means. That is if we are to follow the constitution. The ruling of the SC is final, and the only recourse is to impeach the whole SC. But only if the SC rules that it's OK to impeach them all at once.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents impeaching the lot of them, Kevn. And it's not up to the SC whether they can be impeached as a block.

I believe the RA is waiting for a ruling from the SC on this matter. So I would say those in power to impeach are waiting for the SC to clarify the constitution in this regard.

The constitution has no provision for a mass impeachment. In all cases the impeachment is concerning an individual, not a whole branch of government.

Then call Impeachment on them simultaneously. It's not fecking brain-surgery.

You mean like seeking to impeach the entire USSC because you disagree with their interpretation of the constitution, even when the NB constitution specifically says the SC isn't bound to a literal interpretation of the constitution?

What law did they break? Remember, they interpret all laws and the constitution alone. Who has the power to impeach them if they alone decide what is legal or constitutional?

The SC isn't bound to a literal interpretation of the Constitution when considering their own veto of laws proposed by the RA.

They ARE bound to the Constitution where it concerns law --just like any citizen in Neualtenburg.

But ya know what? I don't care anymore.

Well, the constitution doesn't make any such distinction. They alone rule on laws and the constitution. And their ruling is binding.

That's a shame, I was looking forward to working with you. I hope you'll reconsider.



If the SC has acted improperly this matter is not at an end! If that is the case (and I appreciate this is a big 'if'!) then we do need to consider impeachment proceedings. But we are a long way from that yet. I'm prevailing on the parties involved to take a deep breath, keep a cool head and find a way forward that is true to our democratic principles and the founding documents.

You are profoundly mistaken, having apparently misinterpreted a passage in the constitution. I can help though! Let's start with the text from the constitution:
This means simply that the SC is not bound by strict literal interpretation of poorly written laws. This does not mean, the SC can make up whatever they want, as you seem to think. Again, it just means that they don't have to take poorly written laws literally.

For instance, if a fundamental right stated that "all men are created equal", they could use this clause to put forward that the intent of the statement was that "all people are created equal". A literal interpretation would exclude women from being equal where as interpretation based on intent would not. That clause in the constitution was put there to keep silly monkeys from enforcing poorly written laws literally instead of enforcing their intent.

How does this relate to your points? All members of the city are bound by the laws without exception. The SC only has freedom to seek intent.

If you follow this, you will also see that Gwyn has tried to avoid the charge that she violated the constitution by holding a trial without a jury, by calling the trial a "hearing" or "meeting". What's she's doing is using euphamistic labeling along with a literal interpretation of the consitution to justify trial without a jury. This literal interpretation is exactly what that quote from the constitution was supposed to stop! She's ignoring the intent (just trials with a jury of peers for all) in favor of a literal interpretation to get out of trouble. Fascinating, eh?

~Ulrika~

At this point I'd say I'm looking to be elsewhere. For what it's worth I was looking foward to working with you as well.

I wish this city to figure out if it's a democratic experiment that listens to the citizens, or Ulrika and Kendra's personal pet project that kowtows to their wishes when they get mad. Honestly, while I've stated my views on Ulrika, I don't hate either Ulrika or Kendra; it is their inconsistent behavior that I most object to.

Until such time, I am forced to default to the standard recognized arrangement of SL; a sim owner renting to other people, all under Linden Lab's ToS.

I confess, the fact that Sudane is Guildmaster and the leader of the SC and RA are sim managers means very little practical change in my behavior, since they are certainly respecting city law... but while I am denying the government, I can't be part of it obviously.

(Also, while I'm at it, remove me off the sim manager list already, Sudane. )

Sorry, but you don't get to explain what the constitution means, that's the SC's job only. Regardless of the fact you helped write it. If you wanted it to actually mean "the SC is not bound by strict literal interpretation of poorly written laws" then that's what you should have said, but you wanted it to say "Members of the Philosophic branch are not bound by a strict literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, or the strict adherence to legal precedence. Rather members of the SC are required to draw upon their individual fields of expertise to solve complex social issues" because it gave you ultimate power. Then you got to redefine everything, even what you meant when writing the document.

It's like playing a game, where the rules keep changing to suit the guy who is teaching others how to play.


Anyways, you aren't a citizen anymore, so it's kind of a dead issue at this point.

Indeed I do. Because I am my own defense (a lawyer) in these discussions, hearings, and hopefully trials, my job is to present my case using arguments based logically on constitutional law. So, to silence me would be to deny me representation. Since I imagine that no one wants to add that to the list of the city's current difficulties, I will continue to interpret law until this is resolved.

What's interesting (and the reason most SC members are shirking the forums), is that I am possibly the best-equipped lawyer in the N'burg judicial system, having, as you said, written the Constitution itself. Once this is all resolved, my services will be for hire. The way things are going now, I think they'll be needed.

~Ulrika~

This was posted in an external thread and concerns the denial of due process to foreigners by governments. I thought it summarized the perceived problem with jurisdiction quite succinctly. It is a response to the assertion that noncitizens aren't entitled to due process in N'burg.



In a follow-on reply someone made the fascinating observation that there is precedence for indefinite detention and unusual punishment without due process in the U.S. with Guantanamo Bay and its "enemy combatants". The following observations were made:


It appears that the N'burg court system is engaging in the same kind of legal hair splitting as the Bush administration as a justification to engage in unconstitutional behavior. In fact, the current forum stonewalling and failure to engage in dialogue is very much like the Bush administration as well.

Fortunately for the U.S., after much deliberation the Supreme Court reaffirmed that U.S. courts have legal authority to rule on challenges brought by foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay. Will there be such a revelation in N'burg? I hope so. It would make city projects such as the incorporation service extremely unattractive to outsiders, if they knew they could be denied of due process in event of conflict.

~Ulrika~

I really don't get this.

nor do I.

Please. Quoting things out of context can prove almost everything.

Here is a perfectly valid quotation from myself:

Here is the quote in full context:




and my response:

Once the violations were established, it was required to INDICT.

The SC, serving as judges, auditors and police does not equal a jury of peers.

It is my view that the current SC is in violation of Constitutional Laws, their interpretation of them notwithstanding.