Flemingovia for Justice.

Vote for me for justice. It is time for a change.

I sense your disappointment. Recently you voted Mall in as justice on a “common sense” platform. You thought to yourselves: “OK, he is sort of decaf Flemingovia, but he will be better than nothing." But what has he done since election? Bugger all. He has turned out to be no different from the rest.

And so STILL you need, you desire change.

You want someone who can deliver. Well, in just the past few months I have managed to get a comma inserted into the wet, slippery hole that is our constitution. I managed it without the aid of Vaseline, too. That is a comma more than those indolent buggers currently on the judices bench have managed.

Others talk. I Deliver.

For too long we have elected as justices without an original thought in what they laughably describe as "brains."

Incapable of original thought, the stare at any question put to them for a long time, then think to themselves, "dis make me brain hurt. Can't tink about dis. Wot constit... consy... constiti.... laws tell me do?"

Then they post their reply, often flying in the face of the sensible or common sense answer. But they do not consider that they are elected to think. they consider that they are elected to do what the rules tell them to do.

Screw that. Enough knuckle-draggers in the court. Let's do something radical. Elect someone with intellect for a change.

Me.

Here is what I will do as justice.

2. I will never once look at the constaytooshun, bill of rights or any other weighty tome that has told my predecessors what to do. Screw that. who needs a sodding rule book to tell them how to think? You don't, and neither do I.

Let’s face it. The Constaytooshun is not that clever. If you put an infinite number of GRosseschnauzers behind an infinite number of typewriters, eventually they would type out the constaytooshun. In fact – perhaps that is what happened. It’s all random, people.

3. I will listen to arguments, then tell you what is right. The retards won't like that, but sod them. They have pissed on the region long enough.

5. I will use the word "loins" in every ruling I make, just to please GBM. She loves the word.

7. I will not number consecutively. Let your minds be free, people. Consecutive numbers is just a convention.

11. See what a problem consecutive numbering can get you into? This is consecutive numbering, and now I am caught in a loop.

13. Look, I suggest you stop reading now. I am not sure how to get past this prime thing.

17. I mean it.

19. I would use the word "benevolent" in every ruling, just to please McMasterdonia. This is in addition to using the word "loins". In fact, sometimes I would use both words together, as in the phrase, "My goodness, Flemingovia has benevolent loins this morning."

23. All my rulings will be liberally illustrated with pictures, so that former justices can better understand them. (see: knuckle-draggers, above)

29. ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN THIS AND ANY PREVIOUS PLATFORM I HAVE RUN ON IS PURE COINCIDENCE. I had this written by an infinite number of Grosseschnauzers, so there is bound to be repetition.

Serously?

Romanoffia:

Serously?

Click to expand...

Of course. I give the position of justice all the seriousness it deserves. Please note I was the very first candidate to post a campaign thread. I want the court to deliver, and to be free from the delays that cause people to constantly have to ask for updates on long-delayed trials.

I was just wondering given the sarcastic vein of your various points. I mean, after all, some of your turns of phrase and vocabulary selection. I was particularly amused at your "My goodness, Flemingovia has benevolent loins this morning." It would have been more creative had you said, "My goodness, Flemingovia has certainly girded his loins with benevolence" as it has a more literary ring to it.

I also particularly enjoyed your comment, "Let’s face it. The Constaytooshun is not that clever. If you put an infinite number of GRosseschnauzers behind an infinite number of typewriters, eventually they would type out the constaytooshun. In fact – perhaps that is what happened. It’s all random, people". The mental image of an infinite number of schnauzers banging away on an infinite number of typewriters brought a delightfully humorous image to mind. The vaseline comment was a bit over the line. Funny, but over the line. In fact, it slid right over the line under its own power.

On a technical note, schnauzers have a great difficulty typing as their paws tend to hit too many keys per attempted strike. They also lack opposing thumbs which makes using the space bar extremely difficult unless the keyboard in German, which begs the question as to whether or not Schnauzers actually have knuckles.

I understand your frustration with the fact that a Constitution tends to slow down the delivery of justice, but that's what they are it is designed to do. I mean, can't have all those silly consecutively numbered things like civil liberties and due process and laws getting in the way of delivering justice.

So, if you are elected to a seat on the bench, would you consider installing a drive-through window in the court so that you can deliver McJustice (Billions and Billions Served" with an order of fries and a small drink?

[edited for grammar and spelling - see struck and colored text. Wouldn't want to upset any anal-retentive grammarians out there]

I searched your long post for an actual question, but could not find one other than this:

So, if you are elected to a seat on the bench, would you consider installing a drive-through window in the court so that you can deliver McJustice (Billions and Billions Served" with an order of fries and a small drink?

Click to expand...

No. You are too used to the current judicial system which leaves one feeling gassy, slightly nauseous and ultimately constipated.

Justice Flemingovian style is the healthy option. It is served with salad.

flemingovia:

I searched your long post for an actual question, but could not find one other than this:

So, if you are elected to a seat on the bench, would you consider installing a drive-through window in the court so that you can deliver McJustice (Billions and Billions Served" with an order of fries and a small drink?

Click to expand...

No. You are too used to the current judicial system which leaves one feeling gassy, slightly nauseous and ultimately constipated.

Justice Flemingovian style is the healthy option. It is served with salad.

Click to expand...

So, in other words, a little more blue cheese in the salad might make it less gassy, but still constipated?

Actually, I am not interested in food groups, or sitting around doing jack shit polishing my shiny justice (or Attorney General) badge.

We have had years of dysfunctional justice in TNP. We blame individuals who cannot deliver, or who give asinine decisions, or who disappear, but after so long and so many failures we ought to admit that the failure is systemic rather than individual. A legal system based on real-life procedures is simply too unwieldy to work in Nationstates. I woke up to that some time ago.

I am interested in delivering some justice in TNP.

I don't see that happening at the moment in TNP, do you?

Actually, stated that way, I do tend to gree with you, especially on the point of "A legal system based on real-life procedures is simply too unwieldy to work in Nationstates". That I will agree with absolutely. Having sat as a justice in the past and in the present, I feel your pain. Believe me, I feel your pain. There are certain court rules that must be abided that can only be changed if two of the three justices agree to the changes. I figured that one out many, many years ago when I sat as a justice in the Dark Ages here.

Addressing two of the points you make in one feel swoop, I do see justice being delivered, but at an aggravatingly slow pace because of the complexity of the procedure involved and in many instances, most, in fact, justice being abandoned for the sake of preserving the Byzantine style procedure.

Personally, I would like to re-write the court rules and procedures in a way that could have a trial over with in one week before procedural delays reduce all participants into boredom and inaction, yet still deliver due process. I think it can be done, and without having anyone getting their knickers in a constitutional twist. Do you agree with that?

All we need to do is to simply follow a very easy formula.

The Prosecution presents its case, uninterrupted.

The Defense presents its case, uninterrupted as a case and not a rebuttal.

Prosecution rebuts, Defense rebuts, justices ask questions of the parties involved if needs be; and,

The court makes a decision.

And it all can happen in one week's time, none of this crap of delaying tactics and such.


The biggest problem is getting people elected to the court that are willing to reform the court rules to make the process simple, efficient and effective.

If I am reelected to the court, this is going to be one of the things that I would prefer other justices to prefer. If you are elected to the court, would you promote a similar course in terms of Judicial Procedure Reform?

Perhaps you would do better to present your ideas in your own campaign thread? Your post comes very close to thread jacking my campaign topic.

But yes, I would like a simple formula like that. What you describe sounds very like the fiqh, so of course I would be in favour. The main difference is that we spend a lot of time agonising over whether the accused has technically broken any clause in our laws. I think we instinctively know when someone has tried to screw us over, and I would define the scope of the court in far more general terms than is currently the case.

The other main difference is that the aim of the court at present is focused on punitive justice. My focus is on restorative justice, the aim being to mend our community and get back to a harmonious state.

I seem to recall Flem, that you suggested a system where each party to a case would be given two or three posts to present their argument and to call witnesses etc. Nobody else would be allowed to post, so no more amicus curiae or any of that. And the case would be limited to not going for longer than one week.

Are you still in favour of such a system? If not, what else do you think would work?

Also I notice that you suggest that this is a systematic failure. A lot of your satire focuses on the individuals involved in the system as being the ones responsible. Do you think that the people we elect have so little to do with the failures of the judiciary despite your recent publications on the subject?

It seems to me that when we have a good court, we have a bad AG. When we have a great AG, we have a bad court.

mcmasterdonia:

I seem to recall Flem, that you suggested a system where each party to a case would be given two or three posts to present their argument and to call witnesses etc. Nobody else would be allowed to post, so no more amicus curiae or any of that. And the case would be limited to not going for longer than one week.

Are you still in favour of such a system? If not, what else do you think would work?

Also I notice that you suggest that this is a systematic failure. A lot of your satire focuses on the individuals involved in the system as being the ones responsible. Do you think that the people we elect have so little to do with the failures of the judiciary despite your recent publications on the subject?

It seems to me that when we have a good court, we have a bad AG. When we have a great AG, we have a bad court.

Click to expand...

Goog questions. Yes, I stand by the system I proposed in the past. It seems to me to be far better suited to an online game like nationstates.

The only changes I would make would be:

Flexibility so that the system can be easily changed without major constitutional debates. What I have proposed may not work - if so I would like to see the flexibility to easily move on.

I would like to experiment with a re-adoption of trial by jury. Before people start to shout, in a short, simple trial it should be possible to have a jury trial. I would not, however, have a dozen people - three chosen from a pool ought to do it. I would want to ensure no "nobbling" of jurors on IRC etc. (as a general point I thin the irc crowd have undue influence in the region through lobbying officials - but that is a debate for another time.) I am a great believer in "suck it and see" - we try something desirable and see if it works, and then if it does not, we move on to something else.

regarding your point concerning systemic vs individual failure. the basic problems are systemic. Given the number of people involved in a trial, you would need a umber of highly able people involved to make any trial work. and we seldom have that. generally there is a weak or inactive link in the chain that brings the whole edifice down.

But even competent individuals have been complicit in giving and maintaining an inadequate legal system. We have been working on this, on and off, for a decade now. Frankly, it is not good enough that trials like the latest JAL trial are bogged down in minutiae Roman comments that "I am the only active justice at the moment." It is not good enough that player after player walks away from the judicial bench mid-term.

I DO get annoyed when otherwise intelligent people insist on flogging the dead horse of our justice system rather than being open-minded enough to recognise the problems and supporting a radical solution. I am annoyed when otherwise intelligent people think they have no choice but to obey the system and tinker with the edges, trying desperately to get something dead to live.

I have proposed many radical solutions over the years. Maybe, like Michael Valentine Smith in "Stranger in a Strange Land" I made a mistake in presenting radical ideas using satire, or by using religious language, or the political hyperbole of the Flemingovian constitution. But after years of discussion I despaired of ever getting change through "the channels."

At the heart of what I have been saying for years is this - the constitutional system does not and cannot work consistently. It makes too many demands on those involved (which is one reason they disappear so often) and often turns our region, which I have been part of for a decade now, and love, into a laughing stock.

Sorry - this has been way too long. The electorate will not vote for me, I know that. They will vote for someone who promises to make the dead rise, work within the current system and who will not (honest guv) go inactive THIS time.

I hope you get justices who can make it work. But the evidence of many years suggests otherwise.

One thing that would speed things up considerably would be if the only people allowed to speak in court were the accuser and accused (or their counsel). Rather than having each side call witnesses, the JUSTICE could call witnesses to speak, if they felt that there was a fact or opinion that needed clarification, for example:

Defendant: Your honour, I am entirely trustworthy. IN fact, when flemingvia has been AFK he has often given me the password to his account, and hence access to the Admin panel, and I have never abused that trust.

Justice: I think that is a point that the court needs to check on. Flemingovia, is this true? Please post in this thread.

Flemingovia: No, your honour. I have never ever given my password to another person. Not once. He is lying.

Justice: Defence. Please stop making things up. You are reminded you are under oath.

Click to expand...

Prosecuting counsel: Your honour, Flemingovia has often said that my client is one of the most trustworthy people in Nationstates. Would you like to call him to give evidence on my client's behalf?

Justice: No. I have often heard him say this. There is no need for Flemingovia to give evidence directly.

Click to expand...

Do you see?

flemingovia:

The electorate will not vote for me, I know that. They will vote for someone who promises to make the dead rise, work within the current system and who will not (honest guv) go inactive THIS time.

Click to expand...

Not true. I've been here long enough to see the justice system at work, and I use that term loosely. I was actually mulling over a proposal for voluntary arbitration, just to bypass the morass that is the current system. Your reform proposals would fix the system rather than bypass it, and as such you are to be commended. You have my vote.

thank you, Ash. I generally do pick up a few votes from people who look beyond the satire and say "actually, Flem talks a lot of sense."

Sadly I would pick up more votes if I promised to be a good boy, obey the constitution and not think during my term.

What role should "evidence" play in the trial process?

How long do you think should be allowed for the presentation of evidence and the deposition of witnesses?

Simple. I would give counsels a reasonable time - say a week - to get all their dominos in a row. I would not expect any filing of evidence. I would say to them "the trial starts in a week and lasts a week. Be ready." Then both counsels have a week to present their arguments. There would be no extensions or stuff. If the AG cannot do it in a week, probably the accused gets off. If the defence cannot do it in a week, probably they get convicted.

After the week's hearing you get a verdict. The only reason for it to take longer is if the JUDGE thinks He or she needs longer to call a witness or subpoena a log or something.

What would you do if critical RL matters came up for one of the parties and they needed more time?

SillyString:

What would you do if critical RL matters came up for one of the parties and they needed more time?

Click to expand...

we are only talking about a two or three week period here.

Nobody needs more time. If the AG cannot commit to the next two or three weeks, they appoint someone else to pursue the case. If the defence cannot do so, they do the same. If the defendant refuses to appear themselves or to appoint a counsel who can commit to the time the trial will take, the court will appoint representation for them.

IF anyone disappears without notice during the trial, they will probably lose the case.

I will not disappear. If I need a LOA, I will not take the case.

Nobody will use delaying tactics as a way of taking the piss. I am an expert at taking the piss, and I know the signs.

as a rider, and remembering GBM's comment about not posting on NS when in an ambulance taking a child to hospital, genuine dire emergencies will bring out my soft side.

"Child in hospital" yes. We will wait.

"I have to write an essay" Then get out of the way and let someone else deal with the trial. We are not waiting for you.