Just stating the obvious here: a magus that a Tribunal has cast out of the Order (colloqually "marched") is cast out of the Order by all means. There is no appeal. If he is identified in another Tribunal, he is expected to be slain at once, no questions asked: "If I am cast out, I ask my sodales to find me and slay me that my life may not continue in degradation and infamy". And a magus wandering into another Tribunal is expected to have and show his Voting Sigil, and can be identified also by his Casting Sigil: so hiding his identity for any longer time is something requiring a lot of preparation and foresight.
If Tribunal A does not respect the decision of Tribunal B with respect to magi of Tribunal B, it questions the legitimacy of Tribunal B in general. Yes, this has happened: think e. g. of the early years of the Novgorod Tribunal. If it happens regularly, the Order is at the verge of disintegration - which it may very well be IYC.
Part of the question is whether they were marched by a tribunal, or by a single quaesetoris. If the latter the second tribunal may not be rejecting the first tribunal's legitimacy, but that of a single quaesitoris. Of course this is also a question of whether or not a quaesitor has that power, which also varies by tribunal. So a lot of this comes down to a question of the circumstances of the marching...
Yes, if the refuge Tribunal agrees that the prosecuting Tribunal was valid. Receiving Tribunal: "Yes, he was Marched. But he was convicted and Marched by a bunch of proxy ghosts, which is no Tribunal at all. Yes, the magi of the Rhine can disgrace the Order in their own Tribunal. But we are not going to allow them to murder our esteemed sodalis on the alleged say so of a bunch of ghosts. Not one but three of our esteemed Quaesitors, the kind who are actually alive, offered to conduct a real investigation into the purported charges. Meanwhile, if we catch you in our Tribunal trying to slay a member of the Order in good standing, we will add a ghost to your menagerie."
Theoretically, Grand Tribunal can reverse a Regional March if the reversal has not become, ahem, moot in the intervening period, without casting doubt on the Regional Tribunal in question.
Also, this discussion seriously understates the role of the Quaesitores in Marches, because most Marches are called by Quaesitores and not Tribunals. A Quaesitor-declared March can be reversed (this has never happened, of course) by the Tribunal that the Marched magus is resident in, and if the magus jumps the border in between being Marched and the next Tribunal, that creates a story seed (who has to ratify the March, the Tribunal where the magus was resident, or the next Tribunal where he is resident?).
Furthermore, if a Tribunal rejects a March from another Tribunal as being invalid, the Presiding Quaesitor will respond by vetoing the rejection. If something like this happens, of course, the March is inherently in question. If the magus has enough support in the Tribunal he runs to (again, Rhine or maybe Greater Alps are probably the only Tribunals corrupt enough for this to work), then it may be impossible to prosecute the March there absent a Grand Tribunal ruling.
But yeah. If someone manages to survive a March and get it reversed, then either they should have had enough power to stop the March, the Tribunal they ran to has become thoroughly corrupt, the Tribunal they ran to is falling into anarchy, or the Order is breaking down.
If someone actually picks that fight with the Rhine, then that qualifies as "the Order is on the verge of disintegration" if the Rhine pursues the matter. Because the Rhine will respond by sending Flambeau archmagi and a tame Quaesitor to (for example) Novgorod to raze any covenant that offers succor to the fugitive (and ratify their own Quaesitor's Wizard's March), then Novgorod will strike back, and you get another Schism War.
Yes, a Quaesitor by HoH:TL p.63 can declare a Wizard's March independent of any Tribunal, "in the most extreme circumstances". Whether this overrides the prerogatives of the TSE p. 27 Judicial Board is AFAICS a troupe decision. Certainly TSE p. 25 box does not spell it out.
In any case, Quaesitores declaring a Wizard's March independent of any Tribunal by HoH:TL p.63 need to be ready to justify their actions before the "next Tribunal", with evidence "expected to be compelling", and dire consequences for him if this is not the case. If the "next Tribunal" happens to be the neighbouring one where the "marched" magus has constituted himself, the Quaesitor "normally" has to convince that Tribunal, and better show his compelling evidence there.
But this is just a means to show up and thwart Quaesitores who took their responsibilities very lightly.
The concept of fleeing into a neighboring Tribunal's territory is not a simple one, because "territory" is itself rather nebulous in relation to the Order of Hermes. A Tribunal is, at heart, an association of Magi, or of Covenants, if you want to look at it that way. Tribunals don't claim to own land and are more or less prohibited from interfering with mundane authorities and their political entities, and there's certainly no well-defined "state line" border between Tribunals.
So you can bet there are disputes over jurisdiction.
Who is picking a fight with whom? Sending an armed party into another Tribunal is not very nice. And why does it have to be Novgorod? It can be Normandy (a few Tyatali want to see what happens) or Greater Alps (this is our Tribunal, our traditions are pure and as old as the Order, and you don't get to disrupt the peace with petty and dubious squabbles; present your evidence and we will take proper action.)
Can the Presiding Quaesitor veto a decision to decertify a March?
I picked Novgorod at random (as "for example" should make clear). And it doesn't matter "who's picking a fight with whom." Once two Tribunals start fighting like that, the Order is at the very least facing a civil war and either the Grand Tribunal will sort it out, there'll be a Schism War, or the Order itself will come unglued.
The presiding Q can definitely invalidate it by declaring the Tribunal invalid.
lol If the Order has to wait ~25 years until the next GT to sort things out, things will be very bad indeed.
People are prickly about territory. Medieval people are very prickly about territory, and use prickly pointy things to maintain their prerogatives. It would set a bad precedent to allow your peer the right to execute justice in your territory. It sort of dilutes your claim. A king or baron wouldn't tolerate it, why would magi?
Basic ArM5 initially meant it that way (see ArM5 page 15). But when the Tribunal books came out, there were that many Peripheral Code rulings differing between Tribunals, that their territorial borders gained more and more importance: rights to Vis, means to resolve conflicts between magi and other issues depended on the applicable Peripheral Code, which depended on the territory, which in theory the Grand Tribunal delimits.
Quite so. So a reasonably intelligent Quaesitor seeing "most extreme circumstances" that induce him to declare a Wizard's March by HoH:TL p.63 close to a Tribunal border needs to make sure that they are seen as "most extreme" on both sides. This is of course a good sanity check for the Quaesitor anyway: if two Tribunals could disagree about it, perhaps the circumstances are not extreme enough in the first place to stake one's standing and life on a Wizard's March.
But if he still sees the need to declare it, he is also expected to follow through with it independently of Tribunal borders.
Again, the Presiding Quaesitor doesn't invalidate the Tribunal. It's the members of the Tribunal present that vote on the validity of the proceedings, the only involvement of the presiding Quaesitor is to call the question. All this is stated in Houses of Hermes: True Lineages. If I had my book handy and weren't on my phone, I'd give you the page and a quotation.
Anyway, what I was asking was whether the Presiding Quaesitor could use his veto against a decertification (or certification) of a Wizard's March called by himself or another Quaesitor.
The Presiding Quaesitor needs to have the agreement of his advisers for that (HoH:TL p.64), his veto is further subject to close scrutiny of the Magvillus council, and it can be appealed to the Grand Tribunal. Indeed, when using his veto, the Presiding Quaesitor himself is quasi appealing to the Magvillus council against his Tribunal.
The veto is supposed to be used in cases of "clear, unambiguous conflict" of a Tribunal decision with the Code of Hermes - and a Quaesitor who is seen to have abused his veto is subject to "extreme" measures of his House: I imagine that he is at the verrry least expelled from it.
So, if a Quaesitor uses his veto to protect a Wizard's March from censure of his Tribunal, he exposes himself to the "extreme" censure of his House in case this March was not clearly and unambiguously called for: something to do only if absolutely sure of being right.
For surviving a wizards march confusion is almost as good as reversal, and for a demon who happens upon a young quesatoris whom he can possess, this could be an interesting way to stir up trouble...
Book not handy, but I was referring to the abiity of the Q to not certify a Tribunal ruling. Yes, there are consequences, but if he expects an intertribunal conflict, I suspect that Magvillus will be very sympathetic.
