Alas, the Dennis Schornack Interview is on Hold

Update: After many months, the interview with Dennis Schornack was completed!

After an email exchange with Dennis Schornack in which he agreed to a short Q&A, he has now notified me that an appeal has been filed over Judge Pechman's decision and he cannot provide any answers at this time. Thanks to Pieter and Sacha for their question suggestions - hopefully I'll still get a chance to submit them all.

Mr. Schornack did kindly send me a copy of the appeal though! I'm probably not the most qualified to wade through the legalese, but I understand the basis of the appeal to be:

• The commissioner of the IBC is not part of the Executive Branch, and therefore precedents established with regard to other government officials are not relevant. The appeal suggests that Judge Pechman agreed that an appointed official cannot be fired for refusing to violate his oath of office, but that because Schornack was not appointed for a specific term this protection does not apply.
• The legal action initiated by Schornack asks for enforcement of the treaty, and not for personal compensation. This is apparently in response to Judge Pechman's assertion that Schornack has no "judicially enforceable individual rights" under the treaty. The appeal goes on to state that "There is no personal benefit in continuing in an unpaid position.", which I take to mean that Schornack has offered to work without pay.
• That Schnornack is a "trustee", not a civil officer, and that there is precedent that trustees can only be removed according to the "governing instrument" (the treaty) or by a court for breaching their "fiduciary duties". I don't know the case law here, but on the surface this is actually a fairly compelling argument that the dismissal was inappropriate. Which is not to say I think that the IBC could withstand a legal challenge.
  

The appeal also says "Nor would a Government of Canada intervention either help or be appropriate: it is the IBC, not the Treaty partners together or seperately, that must maintain the boundary vista." While a little eyebrow raising, I suppose that this is supposed to support the assertion that the IBC is not accountable to any higher power. Why any country would create such a body is not explained...

The most entertaining part of the appeal is (and I'm guessing this is not unusual) that it comes with a convenient form for Judge Pechman to sign that basically says "Yes, you are right and I am wrong. I hereby reject the authority of the Executive Branch." Somehow I'm guessing she would write her own opinion in the event she changes her mind.

Open Invitation to Dennis Schornack

I am assuming that the "Dennis" who posted a comment recently using first person pronouns really is Dennis Schornack, and not an extremely subtle impostor. Mr. Schornack, I would like very much to ask you a few questions about your time as Commissioner of the International Boundary Commission and the recent fallout. If you contact me via email I will send you a number of questions (not more than 10, unless you are feeling very generous with your time), and post your responses on this blog.

I believe I have done more research on your situation and court case than anyone else discussing it online, and my readers would certainly be interested in hearing your point of view. Some of my questions might be a tad confrontational but I guarantee they will be polite, and I won't make a capital case out of it if you choose not to answer all them.

If you have an alternate suggestion for how this interview could be carried out, I am fairly flexible. I look forward to hearing from you again.

All Over For Schornack?

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman has ruled that Dennis Schornack has no grounds for appealing his firing by the White House. Much to my surprise, the basis for the ruling actually makes sense; namely that the treaty defining the International Boundary Commission does not provide Schornack (as opposed to an actual signatory of the treaty) with any basis for complaining about the way it is interpreted.

"The 1908 and 1925 treaties do not create judicially enforceable individual rights regarding appointment or removal," she wrote. "The treaties create obligations between (the U.S. and Canada) that are enforceable through political and diplomatic channels, or by other remedies available in international law, not by individuals in domestic courts."

Pechman apparently was sympathetic to Schornack's interpretation of the treaty ("I can't be fired") though. I still doubt very much that Canada would ever want to suggest that the Commissioner on the Northern side of the border can't be fired...

At any rate, the Leus will now be proceeding with their lawsuit against the IBC, although why I'm not sure as they have already been given a reprieve by the White House. Oh well, maybe their lawsuit will answer my questions about whether the treaty has been misinterpreted for a looooong time.