We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Sheila Hardy
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic-Social Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 4653
Description[?]:
| On July 4651, it was brought to my attention by one of my constituents that Norwalk State Judge, Sheila Hardy, had not been impartial when resolving the cases put to her consideration. I remitted the letter to the Norwalk Supreme Court so they would take actions to investigate and punish her actions, if necessary. The Supreme Court disclosed the man's name and informed Judge Hardy about the complaint. It turned out to be one of his staffers. In August, news broke in Norwalk about several threatening letters demanding his resignation due to "treason" mailed to the constituent who denounced Judge Hardy's actions, including one against the man's children, whose names won't be mentioned due to secrecy and safety. The man immediately pressed charges and the District Attorney's Office opened an investigation to determine who'd been sending the letters and discovered that it was another of Judge Hardy's staffers, one of his oldest and closest colleagues. Later, as the investigation continued, the mailer confessed to having been instructed by Judge Hardy to mail said letters to push the whistleblower out of her work environment. Even though this was a confession, there was no hard evidence to prove Judge Hardy's actions, so no charges were pressed against her and she continues to hold her office. As the scandal grew, by September more of Judge Hardy's staffers began to testify to the news outlets about her authoritarian attitude and several unethical, but not illegal, ways that she's asked them to handle certain cases so she can resolve as she wants, according to her personal bias. For this reason, it is my duty, as a Representative from the State of Norwalk to present these articles of impeachment against Norwalk State Judge Sheila Hardy to the House of Representatives on grounds of the following impeachable offenses: 1. Dishonesty, 2. Abuse of authority, 3. Intimidation, 4. Dereliction of duty, 5. Unbecoming conduct, 6. and, Ordinary Crimes. I ask that the Speaker of the House of Representatives instructs the competent Committees to conduct a formal Impeachment Inquiry to shed a light on the truthful facts of this case and whether or not Judge Sheila Hardy committed any impeachable offenses that might require her removal from office. Clifton Williams Norwalk Representative |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:08:20, October 19, 2019 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Sheila Hardy |
| Message | As it is my right and Constitutional duty under the Impeachment Rules and Procedures Constitutional Clause, I formally remit these articles of impeachment to the House Judiciary and Ethics Committees to conduct an Impeachment Inquiry on the actions of Judge Sheila Hardy. Gene Hale Speaker of the House |
| Date | 05:16:18, October 19, 2019 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Sheila Hardy |
| Message | Due to the nature of the process started against Judge Sheila Hardy, it is the Rules Committee's duty to inform the Committees involved about the way the hearings and inquiry shall be conducted: 1. The Inquiry must be started effective immediately from the moment a copy of the Articles of Impeachment is received by the Committee Chair. 2. The Committee shall subpoena any individual, document, record (electronic or physical) or any other evidence that is deemed necessary and helpful to the investigation: a) Regarding hard evidence such as documents or records, it must be evaluated by the entire Committee, but it is not required that this evidence is disclosed to the public any time prior to the recommendation's publication. b) Regarding witness and individual interrogations, these must be held in public hearings where the Committee Chair must allow each member of the Committee to ask the questions they deem pertinent for the amount of time that is deemed necessary. The Chair is allowed to hold any uncollaborating witness or Committee member in contempt for their obstruction. 3. Once the Committee considers the facts have been investigated enough, a vote must be held. A simple majority of the members are required to vote to recommend for or against impeachment. 4. Once the recommendation has been determined, it must be presented to the entire House in the form of a report. Annie Gregory Rules Committee Chair |
| Date | 23:02:37, October 21, 2019 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Sheila Hardy |
| Message | The Judiciary Committee has concluded its Impeachment Inquiry into the denounced actions of Norwalk State Judge Sheila Hardy. After a thorough investigation, hearings, and analysis, the Committee is ready to present its formal recommendation. Given the character of the Committee, we investigated to determine the illegality of the acts allegedly committed by Judge Hardy and reached the conclusion that there's no evidence that proves Judge Hardy committed any crimes. For this reason, we recommend the House not to Impeach Judge Hardy on the Impeachable Offenses of: a. Ordinary Crimes Alberto Silva Judiciary Committee Chair |
| Date | 23:08:28, October 21, 2019 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Sheila Hardy |
| Message | The House Ethics Committee has now finalized its Inquiry into the actions of Norwalk State Judge Sheila Hardy. It was our goal to determine whether the actions committed by her were unethical in nature and posed Impeachable Offenses because of the office she holds in our nation. After hearings, analysis, reading documents and examining records provided by several parties, the Committee recommends to Impeach Judge Hardy on the following Offenses: a. Abuse of authority The several testimonies provided by close staffers and aides of Judge Hardy's prove that she is abusive and authoritarian and that she has used the office she holds to fulfill her personal agenda. b. Intimidation Those same testimonies have proven that Judge Hardy has used her power to intimidate those who oppose her and her ideas. c. Dereliction of duty The case files analyzed and examined by this Committee have concluded that Judge Hardy has not properly exercised her office and that she as not accomplished the functions she was sworn to fulfill. She has not been impartial and fair and has ruled only in favor of those she considers "worthy". d. Unbecoming conduct All the arguments and conclusions aforementioned constitute unbecoming conduct on her part. Claude Green Ethics Committee Chair |
| Date | 23:09:10, October 21, 2019 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Sheila Hardy |
| Message | Given that both Committees have presented their recommendations, it is now the House's duty to vote whether to Impeach or not to Impeach Judge Hardy. Gene Hale Speaker of the House |
| Date | 23:09:43, October 21, 2019 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Sheila Hardy |
| Message | A simple majority is required to Impeach Judge Hardy and set a date for her trial. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 316 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 119 |
| Random fact: Particracy has been running since 2005. Dorvik was Particracy's first nation, the Dorvik Social Democrats the first party and the International Greens the first Party Organisation. |
| Random quote: "In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up." - Pastor Martin Niemoller |