Treize Dreizehn For Great Justice

Treize_Dreizehn

Treize_Dreizehn

TNPer
Hey. So you guys know me pretty well by now. You've probably figured out that I have a keen eye for the law. I ran during the last justice election because I genuinely felt that I could help the region in the position. That said... the region made a different choice.

I want to be clear, the current Justices (Ator People and SillyString) are doing a tremendously good job. Especially given the circumstances they've been subjected to. We need more people like that with strong roots in doing what is best for the region... while still maintaining their eye on ensuring our laws are upheld. If it was an easy line to tow... we wouldn't be having a special election right now.

I offer you a guarantee... and one that I think the outgoing justice would've done well to have upheld himself: If I make a decision I will back it up with an argument. At minimum. Where it makes sense (as would be the case in most situations) I'll reference the law that has led me to such a decision. Will I be right 100% of the time? No, of course not. But I'll do my best to ensure this region has a fair and just judiciary again.

We can look at my performance in the H&H trial, and yes, even in the JAL trial to indicate how I would perform as a justice. I believe in backing up my words with actions. Assuming Ator and Silly haven't already done so by the time this election concludes my first step as Justice would be to work on overhauling the court rules. Roman was at least on the right track with that. Secondly... I would do my job. I know it's a strange thing to have to bring up... but given the theatrics of the outgoing justice I believe it needs saying.

We have to be done with this needless bickering. We need to move on, and I think some of us could stand to grow up.

That's all. Questions are encouraged.
 
Given the fact that Ator was largely and totally absent for the past week or so (or more) from the Court and Silly Sting absolutely ignored anything going on in the private chambers of the Court (as I can testify as to being the former CJ)...

How would you, were you Chief Justice, handle via the arbitrary Court Rules that can be created by a Chief Justice to get Justices clearly in dereliction of duty to do their jobs and be active in those jobs?

Also, did you think I was being fair in dismissing the case of TNP v. JAL under the premise that JAL could not get a fair trial in TNP under the current conditions here?

Oh, and if this goes into a run-off election, what would you do with your 12 and 1/2 hour term as a Justice?
 
Romanoffia:
Given the fact that Ator was largely and totally absent for the past week or so (or more) from the Court and Silly Sting absolutely ignored anything going on in the private chambers of the Court (as I can testify as to being the former CJ)...

How would you, were you Chief Justice, handle via the arbitrary Court Rules that can be created by a Chief Justice to get Justices clearly in dereliction of duty to do their jobs and be active in those jobs?

Also, did you think I was being fair in dismissing the case of TNP v. JAL under the premise that JAL could not get a fair trial in TNP under the current conditions here?

Oh, and if this goes into a run-off election, what would you do with your 12 and 1/2 hour term as a Justice?
Click to expand...
The Constitution is pretty clear. The Chief Justice does not have the ability to "create rules". The line in question is this one: "3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion." This does not, necessarily, indicate that the Chief Justice is allowed to create rules.

The reading is simple, the chief justice may make decisions in the absence of a particular rule in regards to the court. Now, it seems that you are taking an "active" approach to that interpretation in that you believe that if something isn't explicitly disallowed by a current court rule you may make a new rule to govern it(say for example making a rule requiring a certain level of activity).

The power of the Chief Justice in this is, in my opinion, more passive. That is, if a specific problem arises relating to the court, the chief justice has the power to make a decision on how to deal with it. But in absence of a problem to fix, I don't believe the Chief Justice has the power to unilaterally create rules. The justices have a set of rules agreed upon, and it is my opinion that a majority of Justices should be capable of coming together to amend them should that become necessary. In the absence of such an amendment, the precedent set by the chief justice's discretion would reign supreme.

You second question though: As JAL's lawyer, I welcomed the dismissal. I do not, however, honestly believe it was grounded in a good legal basis. I presented to you many arguments in favor of a dismissal that could've reasonably been utilized to allow for a dismissal. And I think we should in all fairness come to the real issue with that trial: You didn't explain your rulings. This led to numerous dismissal motions with differing justifications because absent a logical reason for your dismissals, we could only assume that other arguments would be appropriate.

Later it became apparent (because you said as much) that you were committed to seeing the case through to trial no matter what, which was of course alarming to me. If you weren't going to entertain reasonable arguments on the subject of dismissal in a pre-trial phase which (if you had dismissed without prejudice) would've had little to no effect on the eventual trial itself (except possibly the choosing of another justice to preside), then how could I reasonably think my client was going to get a fair trial from you?

I did the only thing I could do for my client, and you dismissed the case. I would've much preferred a less combative solution but I will take the win regardless.

And if this goes to a runoff and I have a 12 and a half hour term as justice, that would suck. What would I do? Party I guess.
 
If you had been presiding Justice in the recent trial TNP vs JAL, how would you have conducted the trial differently?
 
Romanoffia:
Given the fact that Ator was largely and totally absent for the past week or so (or more) from the Court and Silly Sting absolutely ignored anything going on in the private chambers of the Court (as I can testify as to being the former CJ)...

How would you, were you Chief Justice, handle via the arbitrary Court Rules that can be created by a Chief Justice to get Justices clearly in dereliction of duty to do their jobs and be active in those jobs?
Click to expand...
I do not wish to hijack treize's election thread, but those are very serious accusations you make against the currently sitting justices.

"dereliction of duty" (your phrase) is a serious matter.

Are you absolutely sure you are giving an accurate portrayal of what went on in the private court chambers during the JAL trial?
 
Do you feel like you're at a disadvantage due to the lack of calling dibs on the role of justice on your part?
 
flemingovia:
If you had been presiding Justice in the recent trial TNP vs JAL, how would you have conducted the trial differently?
Click to expand...
That's a very difficult hypothetical for me to answer. There are two reasons essentially. First of all it assumes there would be two of me. One to preside and one to act as attorney. While I hope that one day that dream will become a reality, as it stands it's hard to say how I would've reacted to myself.

Second, and probably most importantly, there is a strong belief among certain TNPers that the JAL case could go to trial again. So despite the fact that I'd have to recuse myself from all decisions related to it, I do not feel that speaking of my own opinion on how to handle the trial will be at all helpful to whoever ends up as presiding justice in that case. So in deference to whoever that might be, I don't believe I can honestly answer that question as fully as I'd like.

With all that said... I would certainly have done it differently. ;)
 
flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
Given the fact that Ator was largely and totally absent for the past week or so (or more) from the Court and Silly Sting absolutely ignored anything going on in the private chambers of the Court (as I can testify as to being the former CJ)...

How would you, were you Chief Justice, handle via the arbitrary Court Rules that can be created by a Chief Justice to get Justices clearly in dereliction of duty to do their jobs and be active in those jobs?
Click to expand...
I do not wish to hijack treize's election thread, but those are very serious accusations you make against the currently sitting justices.

"dereliction of duty" (your phrase) is a serious matter.

Are you absolutely sure you are giving an accurate portrayal of what went on in the private court chambers during the JAL trial?
Click to expand...
You have to remember, accusations are slander and libel and do not exist in the Legal Code of TNP. You will also have to remember that no once can be charged of any crime not specifically listed in the legal code.

What would you call it when you cannot get justices to attend to their duties or respond in a timely fashion to legitimate court business? Good practice, perhaps?

And, are you suggesting that the laws be created randomly and capriciously just to satisfy the untwisting of your own knickers?

Nice try, Flem, but you know better than to pull that garbage. But then again, you want a State Religion in total violation of the BOR - and that silliness shows exactly where you are coming.


TD:

The Constitution is pretty clear. The Chief Justice does not have the ability to "create rules". The line in question is this one: "3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion." This does not, necessarily, indicate that the Chief Justice is allowed to create rules.
Click to expand...

You are making a self-contradicting statement. The line in question clearly states: "Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion." I think that's pretty clear as to whether or not a CJ can create on the fly rules that fill in gaps where no rules exist. COE did it all the time. But that just means that some people can do a certain thing but others are denied the same ability.

But seriously, were you the presiding Justice on TNP v. JAL and you had to deal with a defence council that was being unruly and disrespectful, what would you have done?

And, if you were getting all manner of pressure to assure a conviction of JAL (the Teflon JAL as Flem put it) or catch hell and recall for it, would you have not also dismissed on the grounds that a fair trial could not be had?
 
Romanoffia:
But seriously, were you the presiding Justice on TNP v. JAL and you had to deal with a defence council that was being unruly and disrespectful, what would you have done?
Click to expand...
Luckily you've given me a great opportunity to give you an object lesson in what I would do. You have been arguing with folks all over these forums and that is entirely your right. However this thread is not your soap box. So either stick to questions about my candidacy or GTFO, if you please.

That said, I believe you somehow missed the point I was making. Giving the chief justice discretion where rules don't exist is not the same as allowing the chief justice to make up rules. It means she has the ability to make decisions even when rules don't exist, but those decisions are not themselves rules.
 
That said, I believe you somehow missed the point I was making. Giving the chief justice discretion where rules don't exist is not the same as allowing the chief justice to make up rules. It means she has the ability to make decisions even when rules don't exist, but those decisions are not themselves rules.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I have to agree to a certain point. The rules are clear, that the CJ can make rules where no such rules exist. The Court has the authority also as a whole to create their own rules. In fact, the CJ can almost dictate those rules, under the existing rules and Constitution, should those rules have to deal with unforseen difficulties.

Do you think the Constitution is defective in allowing the CJ the latitude to create rules where no such rules exist (as it clearly states)?
 
Romanoffia:
Do you think the Constitution is defective in allowing the CJ the latitude to create rules where no such rules exist (as it clearly states)?
Click to expand...
Well since the constitution doesn't give the CJ the latitude to make rules, but rather to make decisions... I'd say it's a good ace to have in the justices' pocket for unforeseen circumstances.
 
The Constibilicode cleary says, "Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion."

Is not your position vacating that element of the Constitution? What is your logic based upon the Constitution for your claim?
 
Romanoffia:
The Constibilicode cleary says, "Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion."

Is not your position vacating that element of the Constitution? What is your logic based upon the Constitution for your claim?
Click to expand...
I have been very clear about this particular point already. But I will make this point again as clearly as I think I am able:

I'm aware of what the constitution says... I quoted it earlier when I answered your question the first time. If it said "Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may create them" then the Chief Justice would be empowered to create arbitrary rules where ever she liked. But it does not say that. I'm aware that is one of the possible interpretations, but a plain text reading does not in fact necessitate that particular interpretation.
 
Convince me in a 16 line ABAB pattern couplet that you are better than Nierr for this job.
 
Convince me in a 16 line ABAB pattern couplet that you are better than Nierr for this job.
Click to expand...
Despite all Romanoffia's ad-libs,
This special election will in fact run,
I dispute the truth of Neirr calling dibs,
Because he forgets, that I called shotgun.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
Convince me in a 16 line ABAB pattern couplet that you are better than Nierr for this job.
Click to expand...
Despite all Romanoffia's ad-libs,
This special election will in fact run,
I dispute the truth of Neirr calling dibs,
Because he forgets, that I called shotgun.
Click to expand...
2.5/10 because only 25% was presented.

However, those 4 were really good so 7/10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top