WHO WANTS TO BE A JUDGE?

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
Well the six month terms for the justices are ending. And until I can remember if we kept the staggered terms, lets throw open the flood gates and act like anyone can be elected!

Feel you've got the experience and foresight needed? Nominate yourself or a friend but not on a drunken lark please.
 
The Minister would like to stand for the election.

(He notes the thermostat in Hell is steady so doesn't concern himself overmuch with actually getting elected, but believes he is qualified.)
 
I plan to stand for re-election as CHief Justice, assuming the proceedure we followed last time --each seat being separately voted on).
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I plan to stand for re-election as CHief Justice, assuming the proceedure we followed last time --each seat being separately voted on).
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it make more sense to have one vote with the top three receivers being selected and the top receiver being the Chief Justice (since that designation only provides for organizational duties anyway according to the Constitution and not necessarily any further capacity)?

Just an opinion.
 
Article I Section 3

5. The members of the Judiciary (including the Chief Justice) shall each be elected to 6-month terms.
Click to expand...

I don't know how that phrase can be read as anything other than a separate race for each seat. And that is the way thejuducual elections were held in April:
In accordance with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Legal Code, elections for the members of The Court of The North Pacific is to be held in the month of April for six-month terms.
1. The elections will be conducted in the Assembly under the supervision of the Speaker.
2.  Each seat on the Court will be separately elected on the same ballot.
3.  Nominations or declarations of candidacy shall take place over a seven day period ending no later than April 20. Nominees must accept their nomination to be placed on the ballot.
4.  Voting shall take place for seven days.
5.  In the event of a tie, a runoff shall be conducted for a three day period.
Click to expand...
link to thread
 
Each are still elected in a collective vote where the top three receive plurality as per the Constitution.

Stating that each must be elected and that each must be elected via a separate vote are not the same thing and can easily be interpreted as different things, but since a method has already been established then it only makes sense to follow that method.

I inferred from your comment that the method was not necessarily firmly established.
 
Exactly! This is TNP - why have one election when you can have three? More elections = more freedom!

[size=-3](as an aside, can I be banjected for thinking Ivan is talking sense?)[/size]
 
Sydia:
Exactly! This is TNP - why have one election when you can have three? More elections = more freedom!

[size=-3](as an aside, can I be banjected for thinking Ivan is talking sense?)[/size]
Click to expand...
Which is false :lol:

I've stated my dislike for three separate elections before. :duh:
 
5. The members of the Judiciary (including the Chief Justice) shall each be elected to 6-month terms.
Click to expand...
The collective election argument would make sense if the word "each" was not in the sentence.

However, that word is included in the se3ntence, and therefore, the sentence has to have a meaning other than a collective vote on all three seats. Which leads to separate voting on seat seat.
 
I shall not be standing for re-election; the judicial process does, in fact, need some tweaking, and it bugs me to introduce legislation to address such while sitting as a Justice.

However, I would like to endorse Grosse and GM.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
5. The members of the Judiciary (including the Chief Justice) shall each be elected to 6-month terms.
Click to expand...
The collective election argument would make sense if the word "each" was not in the sentence.

However, that word is included in the se3ntence, and therefore, the sentence has to have a meaning other than a collective vote on all three seats. Which leads to separate voting on seat seat.
Click to expand...
I read it as meaning that no member of the Judiciary could be subject to appointment or otherwise included as is done in some regions where the Judiciary is split between elected and appointed Judges, thus each are elected.

Inclusion of the word each does not automatically imply separate under any common use of the English language that I have ever encountered.
 
Byardkuria:
I shall not be standing for re-election; the judicial process does, in fact, need some tweaking, and it bugs me to introduce legislation to address such while sitting as a Justice.

However, I would like to endorse Grosse and GM.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I hope others can do the same. I believe it obvious that the Chief Justice and I do not necessarily agree on all matters pertaining to legal interpretation but, in general, I feel that we are able to discuss these differences in a reasonable fashion. Perhaps having a different perspective in the Court would be a good thing for the region.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Grosseschnauzer:
5. The members of the Judiciary (including the Chief Justice) shall each be elected to 6-month terms.
Click to expand...
The collective election argument would make sense if the word "each" was not in the sentence.

However, that word is included in the se3ntence, and therefore, the sentence has to have a meaning other than a collective vote on all three seats. Which leads to separate voting on seat seat.
Click to expand...
I read it as meaning that no member of the Judiciary could be subject to appointment or otherwise included as is done in some regions where the Judiciary is split between elected and appointed Judges, thus each are elected.

Inclusion of the word each does not automatically imply separate under any common use of the English language that I have ever encountered.
Click to expand...
Sorry GM but all elected officials need to have been an RA member for 30 days.
 
mr_sniffles:
Gracius Maximus:
Grosseschnauzer:
5. The members of the Judiciary (including the Chief Justice) shall each be elected to 6-month terms.
Click to expand...
The collective election argument would make sense if the word "each" was not in the sentence.

However, that word is included in the se3ntence, and therefore, the sentence has to have a meaning other than a collective vote on all three seats. Which leads to separate voting on seat seat.
Click to expand...
I read it as meaning that no member of the Judiciary could be subject to appointment or otherwise included as is done in some regions where the Judiciary is split between elected and appointed Judges, thus each are elected.

Inclusion of the word each does not automatically imply separate under any common use of the English language that I have ever encountered.
Click to expand...
Sorry GM but all elected officials need to have been an RA member for 30 days.
Click to expand...
Oh, I was going on the precedent set earlier this month.

While I understand that the Court did not provide a clear ruling on the matter the Chief Justice did state in his opinion that he considered Tresville to have been a member of the RA in good standing for longer than the proscribed 30 days due to his prior service, that plus an unexplained delay in his reapplication being processed fully.

It was also stated that the 30 day requirement was not clear in its entirety that it must be 30 consequtive days according to the Constitution. The nation Gracius Maximus has served more than 30 days in the Regional Assembly, having also served as a member of the Security Council and a candidate for Prime Minister in past elections. The only reason Gracius Maximus ever left the Regional Assembly at all was due to RL absence from the game.

I submitted my reapplication 20 days ago today. Surely I can be afforded the same privileges under the Bill of Rights that the Delegate enjoys? Perhaps the election can be stalled until I meet the requirements so that I am not treated differently than those that stood in the recent election period?
 
There's a significant distinction in that opinion -- Tresville was in a suspended RA member status under Law 28 (and thus, was a member of the RA, just one not in good standing), when he posted the oath under Law 28. I'm not sure what your prior status was, GM, but it wasn't as a suspended RA member.

And my opinion in that election case was a dissent-in-part, and therefore only reflected my own views of the matter, and not a binding opinion of the Court. Same principle applies toi Romanoiffia's opinion in that case for the same reason.
The result of those dissenting opinions was the bill to partially repeal Law 28, which raises other issues I'll won't discuss for now since I think it possible that partial repeal could result in a constitutional question under the Bill of Rights.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
There's a significant distinction in that opinion -- Tresville was in a suspended RA member status under Law 28 (and thus, was a member of the RA, just one not in good standing), when he posted the oath under Law 28. I'm not sure what your prior status was, GM, but it wasn't as a suspended RA member.

And my opinion in that election case was a dissent-in-part, and therefore only reflected my own views of the matter, and not a binding opinion of the Court. Same principle applies toi Romanoiffia's opinion in that case for the same reason.
The result of those dissenting opinions was the bill to partially repeal Law 28, which raises other issues I'll won't discuss for now since I think it possible that partial repeal could result in a constitutional question under the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
That is the only specific distinction between our two circumstances. In his case he just went inactive. In mine I informed the RA that I was going inactive. That doesn't seem like a very big difference overall.

That being said, I have requested that the Speaker allow me on the ballot as a referendum directly to the Regional Assembly, since they are the ultimate arbitrators of such an issue and since the Court decided that it was unclear on its authority on the matter.

That will allow the RA to decide, as it did in the revote for Delegate, whether my past service can accommodate for a few days shortage in membership. The Speaker has stated that he would prefer I ask the Court before making a decision but I have to say that I worry the election would have come and gone before it would be addressed, and that isn't necessarily a comment on your speed as much as it is a comment on the overall slowness of the judicial process here at present.

I believe myself qualified for the position. I have argued several cases before the Court here, including the trial of Emperor Matthius and the impeachment trial of Former English Colony. I have served in a judicial capacity in several other regions and have served as Deputy Minister and Minister of Justice in this region under an old Constitution.

I am active and well spoken and whatever the prevailing personal opinion of me even many of my biggest "enemies" have observed me to be fair and impartial in my dealings of ingame legal issues within the parameters given.

I am asking that I not be shut out of the one area that I can truly be beneficial to the region in for another six months because of a technicality that was accommodated for in regards to another in the very recent past.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
There's a significant distinction in that opinion --  Tresville was in a suspended  RA member status under Law 28 (and thus, was a member of the RA, just one not in good standing), when he posted the oath under Law 28. I'm not sure what your prior status was, GM, but it wasn't as a suspended RA member.
Click to expand...

TRESVILLE WAS NOT A SUSPENDED RA MEMBER.

For goodness sake, read the goddamn law as it is written, rather than how you want it to read. It is quite clear. You can keep repeating that he was as many times as you like, it doesn't change the facts. Tresville's legal status was not as an suspended RA member.

The forum administration may have put Tresville into a suspended RA members mask but if you did you were WRONG. It doesn't get any bloody simpler.

You are such a hypocrite Grosse.
 
On that note, since the Chief Justice seems unable to render an objective reading of the law, I will also nominate myself for election- as Chief Justice if we're doing this individual election thing and generically if we're going to follow the common sense method.
 
TRESVILLE WAS NOT A SUSPENDED RA MEMBER.
Click to expand...

Not correct Haor Chall.

In fact, it was Tresville who asked forum administration for the TNP Citizen mask to be set up because he did not want to re-join the RA at that time, and he felt it was unfaiur to forum members who were resident ciotisens to be compelled to join the RA to have a voice to discuss regionalk affairs. A valid point, since the Bill of Rights protects the right of voluntary participation.
 
It is correct Grosseschnauzer.

Though I don't expect the facts to change your opinion, let me relate them to you (again).

The Suspended RA member clause only applied with relation to the adoption of the procedures set out in Article 1 of Law 28. Right?

This is not relevant to Tresville, as he signed the new oath in April (see HERE). The terms of Section 3 are only related to those who had not renewed their oath when the legislation was introduced.

Tresville has fulfilled the obligations of Section 3 prior to his later removal. It doesn't apply.

His subsequent removal for inactivity was conducted under Section 2 of the procedures (in Section 1 of Law 28). I believe that was sometime around June but you'll have to ask the Speaker if he has a better idea. His removal, then, was legal and meant that he was not an RA member and not a suspended RA member.

Though his masking may have been incorrectly labelled at some point as "suspended RA member" a forum members masking, to my knowledge, does not determine their legal status.

These are the facts. But it's fine, continue to ignore them.
 
I will third GM's nomination and second Ann's. Good luck.

Post a few proposals for law clarification please. But beware those that hate long documents.....ooooh!! lol
 
I have always been in favor of brevity in regards to ingame "legal" recourse, by statement if not by act.

If I am elected I will endeavor to rework the existing legal processes within the allowable parameters to allow the common member of the region to access the Court without the need for an advanced law degree.

I will work with the Regional Assembly to push for legislation that will simplify and clarify the legal process so that the current stagnation that exists within the system will not be perpetuated.
 
I hereby withdrasw my canndidacy in view of the overwhelming desire of lemmings to commit suicide.

I won't be a party to it.

I hereby resign from the offices of Chief Justice and as a member of the Council of Lower Officials.

I have faithfully followed my responsibiulities and oath of office, and y'all will rue this day in time to come.

You have a Speaker who chooses to pass the buck at every opportunity, and is incapable of exercising the powers of his office without being totally arbitrary and without regard to the fundamental laws of the region.,He has repeatedly chosen to want to force others to take actions that are his to take. If the membership of the RA is smart they will find someone else to take the Speaker's chair at the next election.

And Haor, I have the benefit of PMs with respect to Tresville, that you don't have access to. So your opinion of the facts is just that; and you are wrong in contending that I misstated the facts as I had them in front of me.
 
I'll nominate myself too. On the basis that I will endeavor to operate within the parameters of the law as decided by the region (even if I disagree with it and think that all of you are silly people with even sillier ideas) and that I will, more fundamentally, strive to uphold the democratic principles that this region has always strived (we haven't always been successful, but the honest intent has been there) to build itself and its governments on.

I'll stand by the law, democracy, common sense, and integrity, and I won't be swayed by political winds, desires, or ambitions (if nothing else, I think I've demonstrated that much since I returned).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top