Sooooo.... I can assume that everyone is happy, then?
well, i think a candidate for Chief Justice ought to get a mandate for specific plans rather than just vague generalities.mcmasterdonia:I'm not that familiar with the legal system quite yet, but you certainly have a lot of plans. As I knew you would when i nominated you. Good luck in the election Flem.
Thank you. Some of the things I have said that I will do will be controversial. Necessary actions often are, but somebody has to lance the boil.mcmasterdonia:There has been a lot of discussion about vague generalities lately. It's good to see clear plans, and a vision. Not everyone will agree with you, but they will respect you for it.
CHIEF justice of the region demands someone who is willing and able to take the difficult decisions. I am not simply running for CJ so that I "win" in the JAL trial. I think that particular case has gone way beyond winners and losers.
When JAL appointed me his defence counsel, I fought for his acquittal and release with every resource at my disposal. I fought for six months. I fought fair, I fought dirty. I used every tactic I could think of, and when I had run out, I invented some more. Every time I was given an inch, I took a mile. And I turned an unwinnable case into one where the only losers were the TNP judicial system. I think it was the boxer Joe Louis who said that the best way to really understand the character of someone was to meet them in the ring. I have met the TNP legal system. I understand it. Because I can beat it, I can make it work.
The trial of JAL is already politicised. It was political from the word go, since the main reason for the trial was to justify the exclusion of JAL from the Regional Assembly - a political act.
It is my legal opinion, and a platform on which I am running as chief Justice, that it is impossible now for this trial to reach a conclusion that upholds the principles enshrined in our bill of Rights, and that justice (and the region) will be best served by charges being dismissed.
Option of trial by rock paper scissors.
Let’s face it. This is a game. It does not matter, really. For sillier disputes the chief justice will institute “trial by rock paper scissors” where the plaintiff and defendant play RPS (best of five rounds) for a token but deeply humiliating punishment.
1. I am flattered you think I won the trial. I stand by every word I wrote about my approach as defence counsel to JAL. What I did I did out of commitment to my client - just as a defence counsel should. But bear in mind that I would fight just as hard as Chief Justice for the justice department.unibot:CHIEF justice of the region demands someone who is willing and able to take the difficult decisions. I am not simply running for CJ so that I "win" in the JAL trial. I think that particular case has gone way beyond winners and losers.
Not so fast, with this Texas Ranger attitude about your legal skills,
When JAL appointed me his defence counsel, I fought for his acquittal and release with every resource at my disposal. I fought for six months. I fought fair, I fought dirty. I used every tactic I could think of, and when I had run out, I invented some more. Every time I was given an inch, I took a mile. And I turned an unwinnable case into one where the only losers were the TNP judicial system. I think it was the boxer Joe Louis who said that the best way to really understand the character of someone was to meet them in the ring. I have met the TNP legal system. I understand it. Because I can beat it, I can make it work.
I'm beginning to think that the real winner of the trial was you. Or do you think you lost?
The trial of JAL is already politicised. It was political from the word go, since the main reason for the trial was to justify the exclusion of JAL from the Regional Assembly - a political act.
So you admit that you're politicizing his case, at least further. Why should we elect a Chief Justice who doesn't understand the phrase, "Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Right" ?
It is my legal opinion, and a platform on which I am running as chief Justice, that it is impossible now for this trial to reach a conclusion that upholds the principles enshrined in our bill of Rights, and that justice (and the region) will be best served by charges being dismissed.
And so it is your legal opinion that the best way to uphold the Bill of Rights' entitlement to "a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer" and "the fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency", is by holding a pseudo-vote on whether to try your client or not?
On that note, wouldn't this "option", violate the Seventh clause of the Bill of Rights:
Option of trial by rock paper scissors.
Let’s face it. This is a game. It does not matter, really. For sillier disputes the chief justice will institute “trial by rock paper scissors” where the plaintiff and defendant play RPS (best of five rounds) for a token but deeply humiliating punishment.
Since, although randomization can be argued as 'neutral' and 'fair', it isn't exactly "reasonably certain evidence". Perhaps if RPS was a consensual option that both parties in the trial could agree to over the usual legal system then it would be legal, but as a policy dictated by a judge? I question its legality.
Do you understand the phrase "fight fire with fire"?