Campaign Thread: Flemingovia for CJ

I am adding another pillar to my election campaign.

If I am elected, as chief justice I will encourage the drafting of legislation to overcome some of the anomolies in our legal system and make them more watertight. In particular:

1. Laws on libel.
2. A new offence of contempt of court, so that it can be LEGALLY punished.
3. The right to a speedy trial.

To name but three.
 
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.
 
Well, let me put it this way - I would say six months or more is unacceptable. Given proper procedure being followed, I think a month should be more than adequate.

However, I do not like the rules of evidence we currently have. They seem over-complex.
 
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.
well, i think a candidate for Chief Justice ought to get a mandate for specific plans rather than just vague generalities.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

I would much prefer people to know where I stand, and vote for me or not on that basis, rather than they are unclear what they would be getting and have a nasty shock.

As for the "they will respect you for it" - Having been in TNP for over 8 years, I somehow doubt that.
 
Perhaps "they should respect you for it" would have been more appropriate? It would be immature of them to act otherwise. Immaturity is not uncommon, however.
 
Isn't it just a tad inappropriate to run a campaign for Chief Justice on the basis of closing a certain case? I mean for you and your client it poses an excellent defense opportunity, but for a legal system as a whole it politicizes any potential acquittal of JAL.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

Yes, my approach would be more "Texas Rangers" than some previous justices, who have been to prone to be swayed by those (including myself) who can tie the Constitution into pretzels and make it say what they want it to say. At least I am being up front about my approach. If you want dull, do not vote for me.

The old brand of Chief justices has not worked. I will unashamedly use the dickhead test and the common sense test outlined in my opening post. I expect to be the most unpopular Chief Justice in TNP history with some. Since Grosseschnauser looks like being Attorney General, I will start a sweep as to how long it will be before he tries to recall me.

But at least I am going to make it work. Can others say the same?

2. Please re-read my reply. I did NOT say I politicised the trial. I said that I came in to a political trial. I do understand the phrase "two wrongs do not make a right." Do you understand the phrase "fight fire with fire"?

3. THis is not a "pseudo vote", and you insult the Regional Assembly in characterising it as such. The Regional Assembly, who I regard as intelligent individuals, are far better served in having specific policies and platforms laid out for them BEFORE they vote.

I have been absolutely transparent in how I will approach the role of Chief Justice and what I will do as Chief Justice. I do not believe my opponent in this race can say the same, since their campaign thread is so unspecific. I believe my approach shows respect for the voters of TNP.

4. On the "Rock Paper Scissors" issue, I stated that it would only be entered into if both parties agreed to it. It would also only be used for more trivial issued that should not really come to trial anyway. I do not believe that clause 7 of the bill of rights would be violated, since the court would only be facilitating people settling their disagreements in a gentlemanly (and entertaining) fashion.
 
Do you understand the phrase "fight fire with fire"?

Understand it? Yes. Acknowledge it as an effective way to fight fire? No.

Thank you for your time, Flem. I think that'll be all from me.
 
Actually, fighting fire with fire is very effective. The phrase comes from forestry, where back-fires would be lit in the path of a forest fire to consume fuel in the path of the blaze.
 
A final reason to vote for me, for those who feel this region needs more activity.

My campaign thread has run to three pages. Hilesvile's thread ran out of steam nearly a week ago, and Grosseschnauser's campaign thread for AG has not elicited a single reply.

My tenure will not be dull. Fancy a bit of justice, Texas Ranger style? Vote for me!
 
Back
Top