It is with much chagrin that I come before the community today to initiate a Justice Recall against another Justice. As 20% of the Judicial Branch, this is a legal recall, and is not a petition for recall through the community. It must be sent to the legislature to be voted upon, and a super-majority of that branch must vote in order for the recall to proceed.

I tell you now before anything else, that it is not my intent to rue what is done here in light of this, but it is with conviction that this thing is done. I truly believe that there is wrongdoing here, else this would not be the path that I am following. I truly believe that all of what is debated following my actions, and the results of that debate will, in the long run, benefit the community. I do not have any forethought as to how greatly this will effect the community in the short term, but I know that it shall, and I also know that the community will be the greater for the strife.

That being said, I am beginning a recall, as a Justice against Justice Ragan651, primarily on the basis of a violation of the prohibition of head moderation set out in [Article 1, Section 2, subsection g] of the Constitution. The current Acting Head Moderator is also holding two elected political positions, one in the Judicial Branch (which is the focus of this recall), and one as a member of a city council appropriated by a mayor.

Furthermore, I believe that Justice Ragan651, as both Acting Head Moderator and Chief Justice has betrayed the public trust. The reasoning for this conclusion is that when the primary issue, that of the dual mandate, was brought before the community originally some weeks ago, Justice Ragan651 reacted to the call by stepping aside as Acting Head Moderator, and Acetius took the role. This was not done through legislation, or any form of mandate, but rather was done from a combination of mediation and a perceived personal compunction from the justice himself. This indicated to me, and to other members in the community that the esteemed justice had compunction in his two roles, and chose to step aside due to that very misgiving. As a result, the community was assuaged and the original recall dropped. A short time later, that self-same justice returned to his position as Acting Head Moderator, disregarding their community, the mediation that had taken place, and their previous ill-feeling toward the dual position they were in. This evidences to me, both as a member of the community and as a Supreme Court Justice, that the esteemed justice had disregarded the unspoken feelings, will, and agreement the public entrusted to him in that position, warranting a recall.

Lastly, it is the understanding of this Justice that there will be a legal argument against the recall based upon the primary reasoning for it. That reasoning being the prohibition of head moderation. The argument will be that there is no illegality due to the technicality that the justice does not "hold" the Head Moderation position. It is part of this recall that this justice urges the legislature to consider not only the letter of the law, but rather the intent of the prohibition on a Head Moderator. What for would a head moderator be prohibited from holding political office if not to remove them from the ability to abuse the powers of that office? What of those who hold those powers and can wield them wantonly? Should they not be held to the same degree of standard? Most importantly, I urge you to consider a situation in which a ban were to be imparted upon any member of the community. Realize that the ban could be implemented by the esteemed justice in question, and that same justice is one, currently of only 4, whom would hear the case to remove the ban. Naturally inflicting a conflict of interest and the potential for an indecision by the court. A situation I am sure the community does not want to find itself in.

As a final note. I do not urge the legislature to come to a swift decision. I do not urge the legislature to come to a decision on behalf of myself, nor the esteemed justice in question. I do not urge the legislature to come to a decision on behalf of Moderation, or the Court. I do ask the legislature to be as impartial to politics as possible in this regard. I humbly ask the legislature to come together, and debate, and fully understand the precedent set before them in this decision, and to make that decision, whatever it may be, for the community.

Sorrowfully,

Supreme Court Justice Solace005