Punk D for Justice

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
I'll try to keep this brief.

I'd like to be a justice in TNP. I hold no interest in being Chief Justice, while I think I could serve in such a capacity I would like to be able to focus on some other things:

- Rolodexing Legal Rulings via some numeric/alpha system. I do believe the rulings are archived and you can get to them, but it's not easy. I want to make it easier for everyone involved.

- Judicial Philosphy - I would be considered a conservative. I believe the law is the law and that justices should not seek to interpret intent where the law is clear and should utilize precedent. I can expound on this if folks have questions.

- Bench philosophy. I have no disdain for theatrics, but I have no desire to be part of them. If a defense or prosecuting attorney wishes to make some allegory, anecdote, or the like I'm unlikely to require them to tone down the rhetoric. Rhetoric is part of the judicial process, in my opinion. As a justice, I shall not engage in similar theatrics as I believe justices need to be "above the fray".

- Limited Commentary on issues If elected I will also limit the commentary I make on various issues. I think that justices have the right to comment on issues, just as speakers have the right to vote on legislation, but I think that in order to preserve the perception of objectivity it would be best to limit my engagement in various issues that will come before us.


That about sums it up. I'd love some questions and am very open to a debate should the populace desire one.

Thank you all for your consideration.
 
The good is that I've moved on most if not all cases. That's a major step in the right direction. There isn't this back log of cases the next AG will have to figure out. I had between 8-10 when I entered office and I promised to right that wrong and I did.

I've been disappointed in that I was unable to compile a training guide for future AG's. I blame that partly on the caseload and partly on ever changing court rules. The thing I'd offer to the next AG is forget the court rules, use whatever RL legal term is out there and argue the point. You'll usually win.

That wasn't something I expected when I began my term as AG. I thought RL terms would primarily be left out and we'd rely upon our laws and Court Adopted Rules. That has certainly not been the case. Or rather, in some cases RL legalese is used and sometimes it is not.

I do like that we have a system to file indictments that seems to work for the court and the AG's office. I like that we have a complaint filing system that also seems to work as well.

I had very high goals when I entered office and while I did not meet them all, I do feel that much was accomplished and I leave the office in far better shape than when I entered.
 
punk d:
The thing I'd offer to the next AG is forget the court rules, use whatever RL legal term is out there and argue the point. You'll usually win.
Click to expand...
Can you point to any instance in which a ruling has been issued based on an "RL legal term" in direct contradiction with, or disregarding, the court rules?

Also, you claim that the court rules were "ever-changing." As far as I can tell, the rules changed...three times. They were whatever Grosse posted, then Hile did a big overhaul on Nov 24th, and they were updated 1 week later, on Dec 1st. Then, for the bulk of your time as AG (Dec 1st to Feb 27th), they were not changed, until a major change just last week, which is not in effect for any trial in which you are participating. How has this 3-month period of completely unchanged Court Rules negatively impacted your ability to function as AG?
 
For what offence were you banned in TSP and for what offence were you condemned by the WA?

How would you compare and contrast yourself, politically, from those who have committed the same offences as you?
 
Gaspo:
punk d:
The thing I'd offer to the next AG is forget the court rules, use whatever RL legal term is out there and argue the point. You'll usually win.
Click to expand...
Can you point to any instance in which a ruling has been issued based on an "RL legal term" in direct contradiction with, or disregarding, the court rules?

Also, you claim that the court rules were "ever-changing." As far as I can tell, the rules changed...three times. They were whatever Grosse posted, then Hile did a big overhaul on Nov 24th, and they were updated 1 week later, on Dec 1st. Then, for the bulk of your time as AG (Dec 1st to Feb 27th), they were not changed, until a major change just last week, which is not in effect for any trial in which you are participating. How has this 3-month period of completely unchanged Court Rules negatively impacted your ability to function as AG?
Click to expand...
When I say rules change - I don't mean the letter but spirit of the law. I'd need to go back to a number of cases, but I never felt secure that the court would rule reasonably on issues when it came to court cases. i know that's vague and anecdotal...well, not even anecdotal, but it's the perception I gathered. If you become AG, I hope that you do not experience what I experienced, but suffice it to say it was unpleasant dealing with a number of justices that I did not feel I could rely on their jurisprudence.

If I am elected - folks will know where they stand in my courtroom. It will be very clear.

As to your question -
Can you point to any instance in which a ruling has been issued based on an "RL legal term" in direct contradiction with, or disregarding, the court rules?
Click to expand...

Had you added "that was not contained in" the court rules, I'd probably be better able to address. The problem is we're adding things on the fly in the courtroom, you yourself raised a number of issues requiring review, and rules were subsequently changed. I do not doubt this will continue if people have competent defense lawyers. By continue, I mean more requests for rules changes. And to me the request makes sense as we're still new at this. I'm pretty proud of the fact that a whole mess of cases were litigated during my time. I'm really hard on myself for some things, but that is one thing I'm proud of.

For what offence were you banned in TSP and for what offence were you condemned by the WA?

How would you compare and contrast yourself, politically, from those who have committed the same offences as you?
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with this election????? :P

I jest of course. I banned myself from TSP by getting 3 warnings in 2006. I can't recall all of them, one of them was a warning for double posting on the RMB.

I was banned by the WA because I didn't react to TSP losing the delegacy to a rogue the way others did. I convinced the rest of TWP of that mindset and didn't back down from my position. Two years later and I'd probably still advocate going to war. AMOM also didn't like this thing I created called the NationStates Republic - i think that's in the condemn too.

In terms of political alignment, I'm not all that aligned with Sedge politically but I agreed with him when he couped TSP. I think his coup ultimately was a benefit to the region. But in most other things, Sedge and I are usually on opposite scales of the political spectrum. Hope that answers your question.
 
Belschaft:
How would you respond to the contention that some of your prosecutions have been politically motivated?
Click to expand...
I'd say it's an strange contention. One of the things I ran on was prosecuting everyone. We've done that. Gaspo wasn't happy about my handling of the Unibot case, but I'm glad we didn't waste the court's time there. I personally like JAL and did not wish to prosecute him, but I did.

There were a number of cases that I did not believe merited prosecution by this office, and yet I prosecuted them. It's the nature of the beast.

So, I'm not sure where the contention that politics played any part in any of my actions comes from. One could reasonably argue that I made mistakes, made bad choices, and even argue I was a prick in some cases, but to contend that any of my actions were based in trying to score some political points would be a mistake.

In fact, my actions seem to indicate that I wasn't trying to score political points.

Politically astute people weigh and measure their words. In this role, I've been a firebrand. Politically astute people look at their actions juxtaposed against the reactions of their peers seeking to manipulate those reactions and utilize them to their advantage. I didn't look at my actions in light of how people would react to them.

I may have performed my tasks in this role in the least political way possible. I don't want to run for delegate and don't want a cabinet position. The only thing I wish I knew was that Hileville was not going to run again. If I had known that, I would have been much more political in this position.

I say that because I would have done a much better job of laying the groundwork for this ru n for office. During my time in office, I didn't really consider "my next office" and I suspect my candidacy in this race will suffer for it. Meh, it happens. Won a lot of races, will win a lot more, and I've lost a bunch too.

If I win this race, it'll be nice to be apolitical and also 'nice'. As a justice, I believe there is a particular tempermant one should exhibit. One shouldn't fly off the handle, throw accusations out there without giving proper thought, or involve oneself into state affairs without being called upon. And if elected, I'll enjoy that life and have my head in academia of the Constitution & Legal Code.

So...yeah, I was anything but political in this role.
 
Tyler Kazakov:
Why are you running?
Click to expand...
A good question.

I'm running because I enjoy the law, like interpreting it, and feel adept at moderating courtrooms. I also enjoy legal conversations and believe that with our numerous personalities there will be many times to discuss our laws.

i'm also looking forward to working with the other justices and seeing their perspective on things.

It should be a lot of fun, if I am given the opportunity.
 
With regard to the recently updated court rules, which changes do you think helped the justice system, and which changes do you think hurt the justice system? Is there anything you would support changing, as Justice, or are you fine with the rules how they are now?
 
The new rules are interesting. I do have a few issues with them though. First:

Old Rules:
4.The Defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea. If no plea is entered a default plea of Not Guilty will be entered.
Click to expand...

New Rules:
2.The Defendant will have 48 hours from the opening of the thread to enter a plea.

3.Following the acceptance of a plea by the Moderating Justice, a 72-hour period for pre-trial motions will start.
Click to expand...

So now it's a bit ambiguous if a defendant does not enter a plea what happens next in the case. I believe the prior rules were stated to avoid such ambiguity. I read through the new rules to see if this is covered in another section and wasn't able to find anything. If I were a defendant, I'd never enter a plea and challenge the courtwith what to do next. It would ultimately not be good for the defendant, but I believe a defense attorney could argue that pre-trial cannot commence until a plea is enter and that his/her client does not wish to dignify the charges with a plea. Further, said attorney could argue that the court rules state that after a plea is entered does the next phase of the trial commence and so if no plea is entered, nothing can happen.

Do wish they had kept this from the old rules.

The court also is now allowing affadavits, which as a prosecutor would have been very useful. I would have gotten an affadavit from all of my witnesses and never ever allowed them to be cross examined. The point being, if you can have a witness and direct their testimony without cross examination, it helps...a lot. Now it goes both ways as the defense can also do this too. I like the addition of affadavits but also wish the court allowed for in-forum testimony. These trials last a while as is, and I don't believe that it is a bad thing to allow in court testimony when people can't all be on IRC at the same time.

Overall, I think the latest rules update are good for the court. I see more challenges to the rules and more updates being needed. Not because these rules are bad, but because we're still in the nascent era of having cases argued before the court and not merely languishing in AG purgatory.

It should be a fun time to be a court justice.
 
Your statements regarding affidavits are completely inaccurate. The court rules specifically make accommodations for allowing any party to require a deposition if the contents of an affidavit are unacceptable. The point of Affidavits is for, say, a party to say "Yes, I saw this chat log, and yes, it is accurate." Something that's a minor detail but has to happen anyways, at least if the advocate is doing his/her job. Affidavits are not, and are specifically designed not to be, exploitable in the way you describe.

The automatic plea entry is, frankly, an oversight which we intend to correct in the next day or two with a final round of revisions.
 
That they are not designed to be does not mean they can't be.

Glad that the plea section will be changed.
 
No, I'm sorry, you are completely, factually wrong, and it terrifies me that you think yourself qualified at this point to pass judgment. Here's what the rules say regarding affidavits:
Article 6: Affidavits
Witness testimony may also be submitted through an Affidavit. Affidavits are sworn statements, which may be used as a basis for later examination or, if no cross-examination is required, may stand on their own. The person giving an affidavit is called the Affiant.

Affidavits may be taken by either party.

Questions are not permitted during the taking of an affidavit.

Affidavits must be recorded in the presence of a non-party witness. The Affiant must state an oath of complete honesty prior to giving their statement.

At the conclusion of the statement, both the recording party, and the witness, must submit a copy of the Affidavit to the Moderating Justice. If everything is in order, the Moderating Justice will submit the affidavit to the official record.

If an opposing party wishes to cross-examine an Affiant, a Deposition must be scheduled. It is the obligation of all parties to make themselves and their witnesses reasonably available for necessary depositions.

In extraordinary circumstances, when parties are for reasons of geography or real life unable to coordinate for depositions, the Parties may consult with the Moderating Justice to determine an appropriate means of recording a witness’s deposition. In-thread testimony is strongly discouraged due to the massive time delay involved in asking one question at a time; mutually agreeable interrogatories are a preferable option.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine. Read the goddamn rules, particularly if you claim to know them well enough to manage proceedings based on them. This is the third time in the past week that someone has had to look up the Law to show you how wrong you are.
 
Gaspo - thank you for your response to my response to CoE's question. As a member of the court and one who wishes to become the AG of this region, I am sure you have a vested interest in who becomes part of the next bench.

It is my opinion that rules are meant to be broken, sorry to say, and rules often have loopholes.

Let's take the following as an example:

If an opposing party wishes to cross-examine an Affiant, a Deposition must be scheduled. It is the obligation of all parties to make themselves and their witnesses reasonably available for necessary depositions.
Click to expand...

If parties are unable to make themselves 'reasonably' available, what then? Does the court throw out the affadavit? Does the court allow the affadavit to stand?

Does the court extend the timing of this aspect of the proceedings?

I don't believe the new rules define this scenario.

The rules state that a depostion 'must be scheduled'. But, as I said, if parties are not able to make themselves reasonably available (and perhaps this is why the affadavit was taken in the first place)...the rules do not seem to indicate a resolution other than saying 'must be scheduled'. Well what other means does the court have to compel such a deposition with unavailable witnesses? The court would then need to interpret this situation in every case, imo, when this arose.

I'm sorry you do not agree or think that my interpretation of the new rules lacks knowledge of the same. This is an election and you are free to vote accordingly if my thought process is not pleasing to you. There are a number of other - and I'd say qualified - candidates you may vote for.

However, if I am elected, I will seek to close as many possible exploitable loopholes within the rules as possible. As a bench, will we find them all? No. Will we miss some? Yes. The latest update missed what had previously been added with respect to when pleas are not entered. I'm glad it will be rectified.

Lastly - from the tone of your comments you seem to think that if one does make an error, even if the court does, then they need to read the "g-ddam" rules. As you and I have seen recently, there are times when the court err's and the court will rectify an error when shown. Part of being a justice, in my opinion, is not necessarily being correct all of the time, but being willing to pause and examine relevant law. And if you make a mistake, take responsbility, own it, and make the correct reversal

In that spirit...

If you direct me to the part of the court rules where the court is directed what to do with affadavits in cases when a witness is not 'reasonably' available and unable to provide a deposition, then I will apologize for my misread of this one particular aspect of the rules.

If there is no such part, then if you think I'm looking at a knat when there are elephants in the room, you may vote accordingly. But I stand by my comments that in real world instances of affadavits the witnesses may not be available to be deposed, and thus either give an advantage to one party or cause the testimony to be thrown out because both parties do not have equal time.
 
"Rules are made to be broken". This from someone who wants to be a judge. Interesting.

And as to the unavailability of an individual for Depositions, I would direct you to Clause 7 of Article 6, which is reproduced below:
In extraordinary circumstances, when parties are for reasons of geography or real life unable to coordinate for depositions, the Parties may consult with the Moderating Justice to determine an appropriate means of recording a witness’s deposition. In-thread testimony is strongly discouraged due to the massive time delay involved in asking one question at a time; mutually agreeable interrogatories are a preferable option.
Click to expand...
Seems to me the courts are actually smart enough not to build grossly exploitable rules. Your argument is based on looking only at one bit of the rules, in a vacuum. The unavailability of individuals for depositions is addressed in a different Rule, because the situation you raise as a possibility is very possible. From a philosophical standpoint, it's impossible to create perfect rules, but these glaring holes you claim are present are categorically addressed by the Rules as created by this Court.

As to the "duties of a Justice" bit, you talk about the need to actually step back and look at the law. Three times in the past week (four as of this post), you've had to have the law shown to you, because you neither know it nor seem willing to take the time to look at it. You demanded that Sanct explain the law to you in a trial, I've done it twice in this thread, and you posted an entire thread based on your ignorance of Election law. Any one of these issues could have been addressed if you'd taken the time to step back and study the law yourself. You haven't, in any of these instances. It's not about being right all the time - it's about putting forth even the tiniest shred of effort to find out for yourself before you make it an issue that takes up other people's time.

Edit: And again, regarding your assertion that "rules are made to be broken"...
Xm6O3c4.jpg
 
In extraordinary circumstances, when parties are for reasons of geography or real life unable to coordinate for depositions, the Parties may consult with the Moderating Justice to determine an appropriate means of recording a witness’s deposition. In-thread testimony is strongly discouraged due to the massive time delay involved in asking one question at a time; mutually agreeable interrogatories are a preferable option.
Click to expand...

You didn't actually answer my question about affadavits and if they'd be accepted. You addressed depostions, which by the way, I didn't really comment on in my original point. I specifically talked about affadavits. I also commented that I thought the new rules were fairly good by and large.

If you can answer my question regarding the affadavits that would be good. I'll rephrase it for you, if it was not clear. If a witness is unable to be deposed because of a number of issues, what do the Court Rules instruct the court to do in those situations. I've posited that this is a bit of a loophole. You've taken a considerable amount of time to essentially call me unfit to be a judge based upon my continual stance that this is a loophole.

Unfortunately, your citation deals with depositions which are not the same as nor treated as the same as affadavits per the new Court Rules.

As for my comment that Rules are meant to be broken, Hobbes probably would agree with me on that. That has nothing to do with me as a justice, but that I fully expect litigators to seek to bend (or nearly break) any court rule that is established if it favors their case.

Hence my disdain for loopholes. They happen, just stinks if they happen in a very important situation.
 
Since this seems to be exceedingly complicated, let me spell it out in the simplest possible language.

If there's an affidavit, fine. The opponent gets to cross-examine if they want. If they do want, then there must be a deposition. If there cannot be a deposition, as in my citation above, you talk to the Justice and work something out. Depositions are what allow cross-examination of Affidavit-givers (Affiants) if necessary. This is spelled out quite clearly in the court rules. There is no loophole.
 
Not sure if you’re understanding the scenario, I’m presenting here, Gaspo. Let me try to break it down

1 – Prosecution enters affidavit A.
2 – Defense wishes to depose the witness.
3 – Prosecution/Defense are unable to settle to come up with a way to depose the witness. Let’s say witness has decided to leave the game and never return (it’s happened).
4 – Here’s where you say the section of the court rules kicks in:
In extraordinary circumstances, when parties are for reasons of geography or real life unable to coordinate for depositions, the Parties may consult with the Moderating Justice to determine an appropriate means of recording a witness’s deposition. In-thread testimony is strongly discouraged due to the massive time delay involved in asking one question at a time; mutually agreeable interrogatories are a preferable option.
Click to expand...
This section does not address the situation where an affadavit has been entered. As you can see, in any situation where the other party wishes to cross the witness, it’s highly unlikely they would go along with the testimony submitted via affadavit. It’s also reasonable to posit that the party submitting the affadavit would indeed want the affadavit admitted if the witness was giving critical information but for “reasons of geography or real life” was only able to submit the affadavit and nothing more.
This is not a typical situation, but the rules do not seem to give clear direction of what to do with the affadavit. The specifically state that the justice may determine the “appropriate means” to record the “witness’s deposition”. Again, an affadavit is not a deposition and thus does not answer my original question of what do the court rules say about an afffadavit if a deposition is not available. Do they accept the affadavit even though a cross cannot be obtained or do they disallow the evidence?

That you cannot directly answer the question speaks to what I was driving at in the first place.
 
Your post makes literally no sense. The whole point of affidavits is to allow someone to offer testimony that is simple in nature. If you want to cross-examine, the Affidavit is not accepted until cross-examination has been conducted, as mandated by the need for a Deposition. If there is an affidavit submitted (not accepted - Submission is not Acceptance) and the opposing party calls for a Deposition, then a deposition must happen. If it does not, you must go to the Justice to figure something out. The only situation in which the issue you are claiming could ever happen would be if the moderating justice was so willfully stupid as to be unable to cope with having to figure anything out for themselves that wasn't explicitly spelled out in excruciating detail by the court rules. I don't see that being an issue, though perhaps you do.
 
What I see is that in an instance when no deposition is available, different justices may or may not accept an affadavit.

For reference - here's the definition of loophole from wikipedia (you can argue its trustworthiness, of course)
A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
Click to expand...

Affadavit acceptance in the absence of a deposition is not defined. Obviously, the moderating Justice will make a determination while in the trial, but I do not believe the rules give justices clear guidance here.

That is my point and that is the ambiguity we are discussing. If you asked all of the justices [or judicial candidates] how they would handle this situation if any of them deviated from the rest, that's ambiguity. And in the case of gathering evidence, I do not believe there should be such ambiguity.

If you believe that there should be, we'll have to agree to disagree.

EDIT: Added judicial candidates.
 
The rejection of evidence is fundamentally presumptive following the inability of one party to exercise a right which they attempt to exercise, to cross-examine that witness. Simple fact. Basic logic, not even a legal principle. Is it a loophole because something so fundamental isn't spelled out, and is entrusted to Justices who at least claim to be competent? No, I don't believe it is. If you'd like to write court rules that do your job for you, well, be my guest. You yourself have complained at length about the complexity of the court rules, but clearly addressing every possible eventuality through the rules will make them easier to understand, and is preferable to applying a shred of mental effort to a question that presents itself. The law requires fair trials for Defendants, and protects all participants' fundamental rights. An acceptance of evidence that would contradict those fundamental rights would never happen in any court, apart perhaps, it would seem, from one which you would Moderate.
 
Gaspo:
The rejection of evidence is fundamentally presumptive following the inability of one party to exercise a right which they attempt to exercise, to cross-examine that witness. Simple fact. Basic logic, not even a legal principle. Is it a loophole because something so fundamental isn't spelled out, and is entrusted to Justices who at least claim to be competent? No, I don't believe it is. If you'd like to write court rules that do your job for you, well, be my guest. You yourself have complained at length about the complexity of the court rules, but clearly addressing every possible eventuality through the rules will make them easier to understand, and is preferable to applying a shred of mental effort to a question that presents itself. The law requires fair trials for Defendants, and protects all participants' fundamental rights. An acceptance of evidence that would contradict those fundamental rights would never happen in any court, apart perhaps, it would seem, from one which you would Moderate.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of assumption in your response, my friend.

Your main contention is this "rejection of evidence is fundamentally presumptive following the inability of one party exercise a right", that right being the ability to cross examine.

And still, I wonder why this is funadmentally presumptive and who decides on what is fundamental and what is not?

In an earlier case I thought is to be fundamentally presumptive that, at mininmum, if a motion is made the other party is given the opportunity to respond to the motion at least once. To me, that's a "no brainer". The court recently ruled that it's a no-brainer for defense but not for prosecutions. In other words, you say fundamental I say Funk and Metal!

Too much interpretation leads to different interpretations, imo, and in this particular instance there's room for intepretation.
 
So in other words, you're only satisfied if the courts spell everything out in childish detail, but it's irrelevant because "rules are made to be broken." Duly noted.
 
So in other words, you're only satisfied if the courts spell everything out in childish detail, but it's irrelevant because "rules are made to be broken." Duly noted.
Click to expand...

Another non-answer to my question.

Noted.
 
It makes me sad to read this. Literally. You two are NOT competing for office, and should both of your campaigns succeed you will have to work with each other competently. While the arguments both of you present are VALID, the way you are presenting them is simply not acceptable, such as empty accusations and turning a response to a simple question into an example of how the other is incompetent.

I may not be as experienced as either of you in the TNP judicial system, but I sure do know how a basic organization works, and this discussion is proof that for all your knowledge and responsibility, NEITHER of you have the social or hospitable skills to execute your respective offices to the ability they require.

I understand the office of the TNP Attorney General tends to be portrayed as a seat of unforgiving, pent up rage, but there is a line between regular execution of duties and IRRESPONSIBILITY. Gaspo, I understand you, your attitude towards getting Court work done, and your brash outlook, but you go overboard- this thread again is evidence. PD, I haven't seen you do the same but you're nearing toward it in this argument.

Please, both of you, make a change. My vote will make no difference in either election, but I hope what I say at least scrapes the surface.

Punk, I apologize for clogging your thread.
 
Strictly speaking - and by that I mean only looking at the legal question - Gaspo is however correct, Iro. PD seems to have simply misunderstood how the new affidavit system is intended to operate.
 
Iro - I think you make valid points and it honestly, disappoints me that Gaspo can't merely disagree with me without devolving to labeling and snarky remarks.

When speaking with Gaspo, I often feel that this is the conversation.:

000-1007162622-pot_kettle.jpg


But I do wish we could agree to disagree.

Belschaft - I'd argue that the loophole I've presented is legit. Hopefully, we won't have to test that theory.
 
Well, that wasn't the response I would have liked, but thank you for at least acknowledging my various shreds of comprehensible sanity.

That, or Gaspo hasn't seen the thread since I posted.
 
Thanks to all who voted. I'm truly honored and look forward to working with my fellow Justices, Abbey and Sanctaria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top