Lajikstan for Justice

Lajikstan

Lajikstan

TNPer
Greetings,


I am running for the position of Court Justice. I believe that I would be able to fit the position well. I know the Legal Code and the Court Rules. However, I am quite new to TNP, and I am running against some experienced TNPers. But I do believe that I will be able to fit the role well, and serve my region well. If you have any questions please feel free to ask, either here or through a PM.


Thank you,
Lajikstan
 
If you had been presiding Justice in the recent trial TNP vs JAL, how would you have conducted the trial differently?
 
First of all, I would not have put up with any disrespect that the defense had to offer, and I would have been very strict with the defense team and probably would have thrown them out. However, I would have offered JAL the chance to pick a new defense team, instead of appointing one. Since it only got to the end of the pre-trial phase before the charges were thrown out, there's not much else to say.

Thank you,
Lajikstan
 
Lajikstan:
First of all, I would not have put up with any disrespect that the defense had to offer, and I would have been very strict with the defense team and probably would have thrown them out. However, I would have offered JAL the chance to pick a new defense team, instead of appointing one. Since it only got to the end of the pre-trial phase before the charges were thrown out, there's not much else to say.

Thank you,
Lajikstan
Click to expand...
OK. Follow up question. How would you have got round the issue that the actions you have just outlined would have broken the Bill of Rights, something a Justice is sworn to uphold?
 
I would have of course given them a warning. But I would not have given them any more warnings. If they were being bad after the warning, I would have suspended the specific lawyer for an amount of time that would be determined, and if they continued to be bad, I would have banned them from the trial and given JAL the opportunity to pick a new team or lawyer if only one was banned.

Thank you,
Lajikstan
 
flemingovia:
Lajikstan:
First of all, I would not have put up with any disrespect that the defense had to offer, and I would have been very strict with the defense team and probably would have thrown them out. However, I would have offered JAL the chance to pick a new defense team, instead of appointing one. Since it only got to the end of the pre-trial phase before the charges were thrown out, there's not much else to say.

Thank you,
Lajikstan
Click to expand...
OK. Follow up question. How would you have got round the issue that the actions you have just outlined would have broken the Bill of Rights, something a Justice is sworn to uphold?
Click to expand...
No where in the Bill of Rights does it say anything about incompetent or disruptive counsel, so a justice throwing out disruptive counsel doesn't break the Bill of Rights and even if it does, JAL would still have gotten to choose his counsel, albeit a more competent or less disruptive counsel. Or I might just suspended them for a period of time instead.

Thank you,
Lajikstan
 
Lajikstan:
flemingovia:
Lajikstan:
First of all, I would not have put up with any disrespect that the defense had to offer, and I would have been very strict with the defense team and probably would have thrown them out. However, I would have offered JAL the chance to pick a new defense team, instead of appointing one. Since it only got to the end of the pre-trial phase before the charges were thrown out, there's not much else to say.

Thank you,
Lajikstan
Click to expand...
OK. Follow up question. How would you have got round the issue that the actions you have just outlined would have broken the Bill of Rights, something a Justice is sworn to uphold?
Click to expand...
No where in the Bill of Rights does it say anything about incompetent or disruptive counsel, so a justice throwing out disruptive counsel doesn't break the Bill of Rights and even if it does, JAL would still have gotten to choose his counsel, albeit a more competent or less disruptive counsel. Or I might just suspended them for a period of time instead.

Thank you,
Lajikstan
Click to expand...
Which, of course means you would have done exactly what I tried to do before the Flemingovian Inquisition attacked. :P

You implication in a previous answer indicates that because someone doesn't have specific enumerated rights in the BOR that all rights emanate from the government and not the people, so, are rights inherent or are they a gift from the almighty government?
 
Do you feel like you're at a disadvantage due to the lack of calling dibs on the role of justice on your part?
 
I do feel at a disadvantage, but I hope to catch up. Anyway, Roman, the government is the people, so I'm not sure about that, but I guess if its not in the BOR or any other document than it's not a right. I think that something needs to be done about loopholes though.
 
Lajikstan:
No where in the Bill of Rights does it say anything about incompetent or disruptive counsel, so a justice throwing out disruptive counsel doesn't break the Bill of Rights and even if it does, JAL would still have gotten to choose his counsel, albeit a more competent or less disruptive counsel. Or I might just suspended them for a period of time instead.
Click to expand...
OK. You have just shown that you do not really understand how the Bill of Rights works. This is not a good trait in a prospective justice.
 
flemingovia:
Lajikstan:
No where in the Bill of Rights does it say anything about incompetent or disruptive counsel, so a justice throwing out disruptive counsel doesn't break the Bill of Rights and even if it does, JAL would still have gotten to choose his counsel, albeit a more competent or less disruptive counsel. Or I might just suspended them for a period of time instead.
Click to expand...
OK. You have just shown that you do not really understand how the Bill of Rights works. This is not a good trait in a prospective justice.
Click to expand...
To go into a little bit more detail... what we're talking about here are enumerated rights. The constitution specifies a right for the defendant to choose his or her own council. So even if the council is disruptive and/or incompetent, the only acceptable interpretations of the law that allows for removing anyone from the proceedings must respect that right. No one, even a judge, can ignore the rights afforded by the bill of rights.

Though there are probably ways to bend the law around it and allow for reasonable decorum. I'm not going to go into what I personally think would be the best solution here because this isn't my campaign thread.
 
I think we should amend the Legal Code or Bill of Rights to allow the judge to charge the counsel with contempt, which is what is happening right now.
 
Convince me in a 16 line ABAB pattern couplet that you are better than Nierr for this job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top