Malashaan for Justice

Malashaan

Malashaan

TNPer
I'm not going to make a lengthy speech here. I have been playing NationStates since 2005, and have amassed a large amount of legislative and legal experience during that time. I'm aware that I am relatively new to the region, but I hope that my work as the Defence Attourney for Ravania illustrated that I have the necessary knowledge and skills for the job. I am aware there has been a lot of dissatisfaction with the Court since I joined the region, and I believe that by serving as a Justice I can address that and restore the region's trust in its legal system. I hope you will all do me the honor of electing me to serve.

I'll be happy to answer any questions that people may have.
 
How would you evaluate the previous judicial term and what do you believe you can do differently to change the dissatisfaction with the Court System as you perceive it?
 
I think the previous term was a step in the right direction, with more prompt rulings and those rulings generating less complaints than we'd seen in relation to earlier rulings. However, trust is not built quickly and what the Court really needs is consistency and stability. For understandable reasons, we see a high turnover of judges, and in my eyes, that is holding back the development of the Court. I would like to help provide that. I am well aware that most people here do not know me very well, so I am essentially asking a lot of you to trust me in making this statement, but when I am given a position, I give it my all and stick with it. I believe I am the perfect candidate to ensure that the Court continues to issue prompt rulings (and, hopefully, gets faster) and to provide stability by being available day to day, and sticking with the task.

With regards to what I would do differently, I think the Court should seriously consider overhauling its rules, and would work with my fellow Justices to that end, if elected. The rules lend themselves to delays and trials failing due to technicalities. The reason case with Tim is a great example of this. Once the case went to trial, Justice requires that it is heard and determined based on the facts. Instead, the case was dismissed with prejudice, because the AG went AWOL. I believe the Court rules should contain enough flexibility so that decisions are ultimately reached based on the law and the facts, rather than the vagueries of particular individuals activity.

I also believe that the Court should practice restraint in the scope of its rulings. At times over the past few months, the Court has issued rulings that are far broader in scope than that required in order to resolve the issue before it. Every ruling the Court makes sets precedent, and can have far reaching consequences. The Ravania trial includes a good example of this. By making a broad ruling that the sharing of information is not protected by free speech during the pre-trial motions phase, the Court triggered a controversy regarding both the forum administration and what was admissible evidence that shut down the trial entirely for many days. There are numerous ways in which the Court could have denied my motion to dismiss that would have been far less wide reaching. For example, the evidence showed that Ravania was asked for a screenshot and then came to the forum to get it. The Court could simply have ruled that the act of making the screenshot with the intent to provide classified information to the UDL was illegal (gathering information is clearly different to "speaking" that information later) and not commented at all on the legality of sharing the screenshot once it was in Ravania's possession.
 
I like your points and you've got my vote if you could explain why we should vote for you rather than the other canadiates.
 
Ultimately, for most of the electorate, a vote for me will be based on trust in my statements that I will work hard, not abandon my position, and do a great job. I believe that my experience and skill set makes me just what the Court needs at this time; a committed hard worker, with a fresh perspective. I strongly believe I can have a positive impact on the Court, and I hope that the electorate will give me a chance to prove that. All of the other candidates are well known quantities, and if you believe in the philosophy that they will bring to Court, you should vote for them. However, if you believe, like I do, that a set of fresh perspectives will be beneficial, you should vote for me.
 
Glad to see you running, Mala. :) I was impressed by your performance in the Ravania trial.

Two quick questions for you:

1) Where do you stand on judicial abstention from all RA votes? What about abstention from discussions?

2) You mentioned overhauling the court's rules. Do you feel that the sections in the Constibillocode that deal with the court, trials, rights, and so on also need revision? Do you feel it would be appropriate or inappropriate for the RA and the court to work together on amendments or reforms?
 
Thanks SillyString, in response to your questions:

1) As the convention is that Justice candidates must be members of the RA, it is implicit that they have the right to vote and contribute to discussions in that body should they so wish. However, if elected, I would refrain from voting or providing substantive commentary, as it would represent a conflict of interest should legislation I substantively contributed to later be referred to the Court, and I would feel obliged to recuse myself in such a circumstance.

2) I do believe that the Constibillocode should be improved with regards to the Court and crimes. As to the Court's involvement in such reform, I believe it is appropriate for the Court to highlight potential problems when they arise through criminal cases and/or reviews, but that the Court should not get involved in the substance of reforms. It is the Court's job to interpret and the RA's job to legislate, and that separation should remain clear and distinct. However, I would encourage members of the RA to bring more review requests to the Court in order to clarify matters and identify areas that need revising.
 
Isn't Iro also an Assistant AG in addition to Malashaan? Why haven't either of these people stepped up?
 
The law prevents deputy AGs from doing so. The legal code explicitly states that "The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific" (Legal Code, Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Clause 4, emphasis added). Assistant AGs have no legal standing (the law does not mention them once) - their purpose is to assist the AG, not to replace him. It would be both illegal and inappropriate for a non-elected assistant to perform the duties of the office without direct direction from the elected AG. This is one of the things I would recommend the RA change about the current law - it provides no mechanism for continuing cases if the AG goes AWOL, and, as I stated in my earlier remarks, it is not in the interest of Justice to have cases fail due to a single person going inactive.

With regards to what I have done as assistant AG, I completed the tasks assigned me. I certainly was willing to do much more, and would have done so if the law allowed. I feel that I could not ethically run for Justice if my immediate past actions were knowingly violating the law by inserting myself, an unelected assistant, into an office that the law clearly states is an elected position.

The Constitution reserves the right to remove and replace officials for the RA. I note that motions to remove the current AG stalled in the RA, which is something else I would suggest the RA considers changing. The process of removing inactive and incompetent officials should not be subject to red tape and delays. If the required proportion of the RA believes an official needs to be removed, there should be a quick and easy process for doing so - drawing the procedure out for weeks just harms the region.
 
At what point did you, as deputy AG, point out to the RA that the AG was missing in action and not taking any role in the prosecution of cases sitting in his office? Did you take any action or just sit and wait on someone to come along and tell you what to do?

Couldn't the deputy AG have made statements regarding this gap in the legal process while the AG was absent?

Or was it that assistant AG wasn't a "significant office" to you so you felt no need to act? Will Justice be "significant" enough for you to act without someone holding your hand? I certainly hope so for the sake of the legal process here in TNP.
 
You're grasping at straws here. I got asked if I was interested in preparing some briefs, to which I responded saying I would do it. I proceeded to prepare the drafts (more slowly than I would have liked, but real life happens now and again - I generally work pretty quickly). I waited around a week and by that time the recall of Gaspo was already in motion. Everyone involved in the legal process knew and understood the absence of the AG was a real problem, so I'm not really sure why you think the assistant AGs should speak up and confirm what was readily apparent already, and the RA was trying to address.

With regards to my statement that Assistant AGis isn't a "significant office," I stand by that. I hope this will be addressed, but the current situation is that assistant AGs are legal clerks who do paperwork and provide advice to the AG, but they have no legal standing or authority with the Court.

I think being cautious about overstepping my authority should be seen as positive in potential Justices. I think that you're a good candidate, but I urge you to reconsider advocating junior legal officials knowingly breaking the law set by the RA for the sake of expedience. To reiterate, I don't think the current law in this regard is good, but officials in the judiciary should be applying and interpreting the law, not wantonly ignoring it.
 
If Gracius Maximus and Malashaan are both elected to the Court, it will certainly make for some lively debate.
 
I would happily serve with Gracius Maximus, I want to publicly state that while I disagree with him strongly on this issue, I don't see it as a personal issue, and I think he is a good candidate. I hope he feels the same.
 
Yes, while I agree that Malashaan is a strong candidate, I do disagree with his personal assessment. I believe we could both serve well on the Court.

I simply point out that claiming to be a candidate for change when you took no action upon seeing a glaring problem, via direct communication or through proposal in the RA, implies support for the system as it exists. The bottom line is that you are deputy to the highest prosecutorial power in the region and you consider it insignificant and took no action to correct a grievous wrong.
 
That is where we disagree, I was an assistant, not a deputy, and there is an important difference between those terms. Deputy is defined as "a person appointed or authorized to act as a substitute for another or others" - if we had a deputy AG, I would fully agree with you, the deputy should step. However, what he have are assistant AGs, i.e., people who assist the AG. In the absence of an AG to assist, there is a limit to how much assisting one can do.
 
We shall have to agree to disagree. I believe you are playing semantic games with the terminology. I am simply pointing out that you, being a party to the inner workings of the AG office, could have taken some level, even at a small level, to address the error in the current system. And you did not.

But I shall give it a rest. By my count, you will likely be a Justice so I hope that you prove me incorrect.
 
Belschaft:
Gracius Maximus:
Also, to clarify, according the Gaspo, the Assistant AGs are Deputies.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8096589&t=7044204
Click to expand...
I can assure you, we have not at any point functioned as such. I was operating under specific instructions from Gaspo that any paper/casework I completed needed to be ok'd by him before being submitted.
Click to expand...
I would contend that no action was taken as Deputy because no initiative existed to do so. The posting is quite clear from the AG that you and he were in fact Deputy Attorneys General.

But, no worries. As I have said, hopefully I will be proven incorrect and the Justice role will be sufficiently "significant" to garner the appropriate attention.
 
The point still remains that, whatever terminology Gaspo (incorrectly) used, the law is very clear that only the AG has authority to prosecute. I would also reiterate that there is a huge legal and ethical issue with appointees that don't even require any kind of confirmation unilaterally taking on the authority of an elected office. The RA is the appropriate authority to address this issue, and the RA is addressing it. You seem to be getting hung up on the fact that the assistant AGs could have stayed support for the RA's action. On reflection, maybe I should have done so, but at the time it seemed obvious that Gaspo needed to be and would be removed, either by action of the RA or the pending Ekron, whichever occurred first.

What frustrates me about this discussion is that one of my main concerns about the court and the region as a whole is that it operates too slowly. I would have spoken out about Gaspo far sooner if my experience of this region hadn't been that waiting weeks for things to happen is the norm. That is one of the main things I want to change in the court. Those that know my work in other regions will verify that I contribute multiple times a day to legislative and legal matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top