Ovybia v. RTL

[Culture of Life]

JUSTICE COURT OF RIGHT TO LIFE
Ovybia v. RTL
Decided July 29, 2015

---

THE UNITED STATES OF OVYBIA,
Plaintiff, represented by himself and Stellonia,

v.

RIGHT TO LIFE,
Defendant, represented by Culture of Life.

---

On July 18, 2015, Ovybia was appointed Director of the Bank of Right to Life. On July 19, 2015, the Senate removed him (Vote 13-6) because it disapproved of his performance in his new office. Afterwards, Ovybia sued the regional government for four reasons: (1) he claimed that Founder Culture of Life had the power to veto and should have considered vetoing his dismissal; (2) he claimed that the Senate's private forum, where senators sometimes discuss appointments and removals, violated the right of voters to monitor the conduct of their elected officials and to lobby them; (3) he claimed that his dismissal had been motivated by animus and irrational public opinion rather than fact and, thus, was illegally discriminatory under the regional economic statute; and (4) he claimed that Culture of Life, as forum administrator, had infringed on his rights by not placing him in the member group "Bank Director" during the Senate's removal vote and that, as a consequence, he deserved monetary compensation from the regional government. The Justice Court made its decision on July 29, 2015, ruling in favor of the government on all four counts.

---

NEW DOLGARIA, JP, delivered the opinion of the Justice Court.

On the issue of the Founder's veto powers, I find the government not guilty. I find merit in both Ovybia's and Culture of Life's arguments about whether the Court should rule on this issue yet, but Culture of Life's provision of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "enactment" is decisive ("enactment: a law that is passed"). Ovybia argues that since the Senate is a legislative body and since legislatures enact laws, any motion passed by it is an "enactment." This argument fails to explain why, then, the Senate is constitutionally responsible for appointing and removing certain regional officers. The Senate's purpose is not entirely legislative; it also includes some bureaucratic duties. These bureaucratic appointments and dismissals are not "laws" and therefore not "enactments," which means Culture of Life was correct in his interpretation of RTL Const. 2:4 ("The Founder has the absolute power to veto any enactments of the Senate").

*On the issue of Senate forum visibility, I find the government not guilty. I concur with Culture of Life's argument that the senators have a right to discuss their duties privately. Although telegrams could accomplish this purpose, it would be unnecessarily difficult to draft a bill solely using telegrams. A forum is much more appropriate. Furthermore, Ovybia's argument that it is burdensome for Culture of Life to communicate the proceedings of the Senate to the public might hold merit if Culture of Life actually admitted that it is burdensome. He has not done so. The Private Senate Forum does not violate the laws of common sense and certainly does not violate regional laws. If the plaintiff and his counsel want to pursue this matter, they should draft a bill making the Private Senate Forum public.

*On the issue of the vote to remove Ovybia as Bank Director, I find the government not guilty. Ovybia's argument that RTL Code 9:13 deals with "at minimum… race or color, nationality or ethnicity, sex or gender" is not entirely without merit. However, being discriminated against is not the same as being unpopular. "Discrimination" implies judging someone's abilities on something totally irrelevant to those abilities. If the Senate vote had relied on Ovybia's controversies prior to the Bank Director controversy, then Ovybia's removal might well have been illegal, but the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this is the case. The Senate's reasons for removing Ovybia rely on the controversy surrounding his performance as Bank Director, not any previous controversies. Stellonia does not provide sufficient evidence that his vote was influenced by previous controversies. I agree with Culture of Life's argument that Right to Life v. Catholic34 (Justice Court, 18 May 2015) is irrelevant. The removal of Ovybia was, at the very most, hasty and blunt, but not illegal. If Ovybia wants to return to his position, he should ask the Senate to reconsider and revote.

On the issue of monetary compensation, I find the government not guilty. Stellonia argues: "Such an error might have suggested to the general public that Ovybia was only intended to be a temporary Bank Director, or that he was somehow less important than someone else would have been had that other person been serving as Bank Director instead." The "general public" was not voting on Ovybia's removal; the Senate was. All three senators were aware of Ovybia's appointment as Bank Director. Ovybia has failed to demonstrate that the absence of his title on his forum profile influenced the vote for his removal. Additionally, I agree with Culture of Life's argument: "My decision to wait and see given two conflicting requests (make the plaintiff the Bank Director, and make sure to open a vote to dismiss the plaintiff) cannot be regarded as objectively unreasonable or damaging. I paid due attention to the tenuous and temporary nature of the hold of the plaintiff on his new office. I reasonably decided to sit on the sidelines until the Senate gave its final answer on the unfortunate dilemma." Finally, I find Ovybia's argument that "the only way [he] can be re-payed is through monetary compensation" does not make much sense. If anything, Culture of Life owes Ovybia a personal apology for unintentionally offending him.

To summarize, I find the government not guilty on all four counts. In the opinion of the Court, the most positive thing for both parties to do would be to continue to mend fences.

* Paragraphs #2 and #3 affirmed by the Senate on September 20, 2015.