Sooooo.... I can assume that everyone is happy, then?
Campaign Thread: Flemingovia for CJ
- Thread starter Flemingovia
- Start date
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.
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.
- TNP Nation
- 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, 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.
However, I do not like the rules of evidence we currently have. They seem over-complex.
well, i think a candidate for Chief Justice ought to get a mandate for specific plans rather than just vague generalities.mcmasterdonia:
- TNP Nation
- 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.mcmasterdonia:
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.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
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.
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.
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.
unibot
TNPer
Not so fast, with this Texas Ranger attitude about your legal skills,
I'm beginning to think that the real winner of the trial was you. Or do you think you lost?
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" ?
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:
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.unibot:
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.
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!
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!