Punk D for Justice

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
Greetings TNPers.


I am standing for the position of Justice for TNP. I have held this position in the past & was once a Chief Justice. But if I may be honest with my region mates, my experience or qualifications or whatever you want to call them have little to do with why I am running.

I am not even running to win. That will sound strange and it is. I am running so that I can provide a platform for my fellow TNPers can talk about what they want most in a Justice. I believe I fit that shoe, but even if I do not in having the conversation you can select from the candidates the one that most appeals to the will of the Regional Assembly.

With that said, I'll leave this forum open so that you can ask me questions and decide for yourselves if I am or am not the candidate that will be represent what you desire in our next Justice!

I wish you well in your selection.
 
If you had been presiding Justice in the recent trial TNP vs JAL, how would you have conducted the trial differently?
 
First - I think it's easy to have opinions from the side or after the fact. First, because of the way our court procedures are in place, motions to dismiss are only available during the pre-trial phase. I think that is faulty because the prosecution is not expected to present all evidence pre-trial.

When the motion was presented in this case, I would have tabled it through Discovery, after which time I would have ruled on the pending motion. Nothing in the rules stipulate a motion cannot be tabled or ruled upon at a later stage in the trial. This would have eliminated the defense's opportunity to put forth another dismiss motion (more on this) and would have also allowed the case to continue with less histrionics.

I did not find anything out of turn with the defense attorneys other than motion to dismiss after the initial motion was rejected by the court. I don't believe the defense was being malicious or trying to delay, but I would have suggested that they coordinate better amongst themselves.

Lastly, I would not have dismissed the case after rejecting the dismissal. To me that is the most egregious part of that case and I would not have done that. In the event that my ruling was appealed to my fellow justices as was the case in this case, I would have sought the opinion of my fellow justices. I feel Roman did not leverage his fellow justices as well as he could have. I would have taken a different approach.

But as I said, it's easy to armchair but I do believe my conduct on the bench in trials previously has demonstrated that I will take a more calm and ultimately fair approach.
 
punk d:
First - I think it's easy to have opinions from the side or after the fact. First, because of the way our court procedures are in place, motions to dismiss are only available during the pre-trial phase. I think that is faulty because the prosecution is not expected to present all evidence pre-trial.

When the motion was presented in this case, I would have tabled it through Discovery, after which time I would have ruled on the pending motion. Nothing in the rules stipulate a motion cannot be tabled or ruled upon at a later stage in the trial. This would have eliminated the defense's opportunity to put forth another dismiss motion (more on this) and would have also allowed the case to continue with less histrionics.

I did not find anything out of turn with the defense attorneys other than motion to dismiss after the initial motion was rejected by the court. I don't believe the defense was being malicious or trying to delay, but I would have suggested that they coordinate better amongst themselves.

Lastly, I would not have dismissed the case after rejecting the dismissal. To me that is the most egregious part of that case and I would not have done that. In the event that my ruling was appealed to my fellow justices as was the case in this case, I would have sought the opinion of my fellow justices. I feel Roman did not leverage his fellow justices as well as he could have. I would have taken a different approach.

But as I said, it's easy to armchair but I do believe my conduct on the bench in trials previously has demonstrated that I will take a more calm and ultimately fair approach.
Click to expand...
So, in other words, you would have done exactly as I tried to do with the exception of not dismissing a trial after concluding that a fair trial was no possible at that time?

And that you would have bowed to political pressure to get a conviction after so many demands to convict?
 
punk d:
I would have done as I said which is a significant departure from what you did.
Click to expand...
That's a load of major Poo-Poo with relish as a garnish.

All you have done is bash people who tried to stop the Lyinching of JAL.


You haven't answered my questions, so let me pose the ultimate question -

Do you promise to convict JAL regardless of the lack of evidence or will you nail him to the wall as your masters have commanded you?
 
Romanoffia:
punk d:
I would have done as I said which is a significant departure from what you did.
Click to expand...
That's a load of major Poo-Poo with relish as a garnish.

All you have done is bash people who tried to stop the Lyinching of JAL.


You haven't answered my questions, so let me pose the ultimate question -

Do you promise to convict JAL regardless of the lack of evidence or will you nail him to the wall as your masters have commanded you?
Click to expand...
I promise to look at the evidence and render decisions in accordance with what the evidence says. If it says guilty, then guilty. If it says innocent, then innocent.

No more, no less.
 
Do you feel like you're at a disadvantage due to the lack of calling dibs on the role of justice on your part?
 
punk d:
Romanoffia:
punk d:
I would have done as I said which is a significant departure from what you did.
Click to expand...
That's a load of major Poo-Poo with relish as a garnish.

All you have done is bash people who tried to stop the Lyinching of JAL.


You haven't answered my questions, so let me pose the ultimate question -

Do you promise to convict JAL regardless of the lack of evidence or will you nail him to the wall as your masters have commanded you?
Click to expand...
I promise to look at the evidence and render decisions in accordance with what the evidence says. If it says guilty, then guilty. If it says innocent, then innocent.

No more, no less.
Click to expand...
Excellent answer.

Would you also apply the principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty? And,

In your judicial philosophy, is it the duty of the Prosecution to prove the charges or the duty of the Defendant to prove their innocence? ;)
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time on the court was not enjoyable for you at all. I seem to remember there were a lot of issues with that particular court. Do you think it'll be different this time around?
 
I must admit that I am very surprised that you are choosing to run again so soon after your run as Chief Justice. Then again, Roman is running so maybe not.

Do you believe that it is important to get on with your fellow justices and in your last term as Chief Justice did you manage to accomplish this? Would the justices at the time agree?
 
Roman - Any defendant is innocent until proven guilty in my mind. The prosecution has the burden of proof.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time on the court was not enjoyable for you at all. I seem to remember there were a lot of issues with that particular court. Do you think it'll be different this time around?
Click to expand...

I think Sanctaria didn't like me and thus was biased towards me. He never actually gave me a chance. I liked Abbey however, Sanc stated early on that even though she was CJ she wasn't his boss. I was not a fan of his attitude in that respect. I have respect for Silly and Ator and I have respect for the office of CJ. I won't have a problem working with Silly even if I disagree with her on certain points. Disagreement amongst justices if done well is best for the RA because that means all points get reviewed not just 'head nods' from justices following someone.

As for me, I have learned that slowing down is a good thing. I felt as justices we had a responsibility to be expeditious and respond quickly to the needs of the RA. What I feel I have learned is that getting a ruling right is probably better than getting a ruling out. My reasoning for being expeditious was well-intentioned as prior courts had been very slow in turning reviews around, but I think I feel that taking more time is probably the best thing to do. So, i'll rework my own expectation level for getting rulings out. I will actually talk with my fellow justices about creating a timeline within the rules that is flexible based upon the discretion of the CJ.

I like that we currently have 5 days for briefs. Here is a sample timeline.

A. Review requested.
B. Within 72 hours review accepted or rejected
C. if accepted, 5 days for briefs.
D. After 5 days for briefs, two weeks are given for deliberation.
E. After deliberation, Another 5 days to draft and publish the review.

The dates are less important than putting a timeline together. This sets expectations. I will work with the court to see if they are amenable to creating timelines to the review process as we have timelines for trials. I also believe we should have an "expedited timeline" process wherein certain reviews can be requested to go through an expedited process. In these cases I believe the CJ should accept/reject this request.

I must admit that I am very surprised that you are choosing to run again so soon after your run as Chief Justice. Then again, Roman is running so maybe not.

Do you believe that it is important to get on with your fellow justices and in your last term as Chief Justice did you manage to accomplish this? Would the justices at the time agree?
Click to expand...

haha, it's not been that soon...hehehe. It's been a while since I was CJ. I believe that it is important to respect ones fellow justices. I respected all of the folks who I worked with on the bench. That respect was not always reciprocated, most notably with Sanctaria. As CJ, I believe that the justices I worked with respected me and I them. I was elected as CJ and amongst the justices so I hope I had their respect.

Certainly, prior to my time as CJ the court had a number of internal issues but I don't feel that I was the progenitor of those. I never wanted to be CJ, I wanted to work as a Justice and do good work for the RA. That was difficult when a person on the team disrespected nearly every word I said. I don't believe that will be the case with the present court. I have disagreed very publicly with Silly String on many issues, but I respect her quite a bit. I will do all I can to help her in leading the court. Our disagreements have never been personal.

I voted for Ator People to return to as admin above a few other candidates so I definitely have respect for AP.

I hope that answers your questions, everybody.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time on the court was not enjoyable for you at all. I seem to remember there were a lot of issues with that particular court. Do you think it'll be different this time around?
Click to expand...

It won't be enjoyable for any of the Justices now that certain precedents have been set. May the Cheese God and The Flying Spaghetti God have mercy on PD's soul. :lol:

punk d:
Roman - Any defendant is innocent until proven guilty in my mind. The prosecution has the burden of proof.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time on the court was not enjoyable for you at all. I seem to remember there were a lot of issues with that particular court. Do you think it'll be different this time around?
Click to expand...

I think Sanctaria didn't like me and thus was biased towards me. He never actually gave me a chance. I liked Abbey however, Sanc stated early on that even though she was CJ she wasn't his boss. I was not a fan of his attitude in that respect. I have respect for Silly and Ator and I have respect for the office of CJ. I won't have a problem working with Silly even if I disagree with her on certain points. Disagreement amongst justices if done well is best for the RA because that means all points get reviewed not just 'head nods' from justices following someone.

As for me, I have learned that slowing down is a good thing. I felt as justices we had a responsibility to be expeditious and respond quickly to the needs of the RA. What I feel I have learned is that getting a ruling right is probably better than getting a ruling out. My reasoning for being expeditious was well-intentioned as prior courts had been very slow in turning reviews around, but I think I feel that taking more time is probably the best thing to do. So, i'll rework my own expectation level for getting rulings out. I will actually talk with my fellow justices about creating a timeline within the rules that is flexible based upon the discretion of the CJ.

I like that we currently have 5 days for briefs. Here is a sample timeline.

A. Review requested.
B. Within 72 hours review accepted or rejected
C. if accepted, 5 days for briefs.
D. After 5 days for briefs, two weeks are given for deliberation.
E. After deliberation, Another 5 days to draft and publish the review.

The dates are less important than putting a timeline together. This sets expectations. I will work with the court to see if they are amenable to creating timelines to the review process as we have timelines for trials. I also believe we should have an "expedited timeline" process wherein certain reviews can be requested to go through an expedited process. In these cases I believe the CJ should accept/reject this request.

I must admit that I am very surprised that you are choosing to run again so soon after your run as Chief Justice. Then again, Roman is running so maybe not.

Do you believe that it is important to get on with your fellow justices and in your last term as Chief Justice did you manage to accomplish this? Would the justices at the time agree?
Click to expand...

haha, it's not been that soon...hehehe. It's been a while since I was CJ. I believe that it is important to respect ones fellow justices. I respected all of the folks who I worked with on the bench. That respect was not always reciprocated, most notably with Sanctaria. As CJ, I believe that the justices I worked with respected me and I them. I was elected as CJ and amongst the justices so I hope I had their respect.

Certainly, prior to my time as CJ the court had a number of internal issues but I don't feel that I was the progenitor of those. I never wanted to be CJ, I wanted to work as a Justice and do good work for the RA. That was difficult when a person on the team disrespected nearly every word I said. I don't believe that will be the case with the present court. I have disagreed very publicly with Silly String on many issues, but I respect her quite a bit. I will do all I can to help her in leading the court. Our disagreements have never been personal.

I voted for Ator People to return to as admin above a few other candidates so I definitely have respect for AP.

I hope that answers your questions, everybody.
Click to expand...

Excellent answer. Correct answer. Shows that you clearly understand the job.

Just wait until you try to do it and you will see what the new precedents set by the recall (and threats thereof) shall throw a spanner into the works.

Essentially, what you are doing is creating/modifying new rules where no such specific rules exist, on the fly. How will you handle this type of action when people start running you through the wringer for doing exactly what every CJ has done before you?

And -

How will you handle the pressure of people demanding you assure a guilty verdict or face recall?
 
If people want a guilty verdict or will recall me, if the evidence shows that a person is innocent, then I guess I'll get recalled.

*shrugs*

...wouldn't be the first time.
 
Convince me in a 16 line ABAB pattern couplet that you are better than Nierr for this job.
 
Nierr may have called dibs,
Thinking he was the man.
But I'm the one with mad ad libs
Rocking justice like no man can.

Nierr doesn't even know his name,
Madjack, or whatever he was,
By a new name is e'er still the lame...
Excuse for a long distant Cormac cuz.

But, if you still need more convincing
'bout Punk D's judicial qualifications
Then I guess I'm just doing some deluding
believing a Tim vote for PD is more than wet dream halucinations.

Oops! Forgetting the parental advisory warning before that last lyric,
Forgive me if I think I'm also know as Mr. Justice Shizz-Net.
The joke that is Nierr's campaign, doesn't match PD's narcissistic
ABAB pattern couplet, TNPers will never soon forget.


*drops the mic*
 
someone had voted for me last I saw...but looks like i got skunked....first time i believe...poetry wasnt enough i guess :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top