Kialga for Justice

[Kialga]

Greeting everyone!

I am James Kialga, or just Kialga, that's fine too. I am running for reelection for Justice of the Court of the North Pacific. It's kind of hard to build a platform for the Justice seat, since you do not know what will be thrown at you. However, I can give a simple snippet about myself to begin with.

My first experience in TNP politics was with the Justice seat, which I was elected to in November of 2014. I have held no other position in TNPs government, but I do hold/have previously held a few positions in other regions. I serve as the Founder of the UCR, International Western Union. In the past I have served as Regional Chairman, Justice, and Cartographer in the IWU. When July rolls around, I will have been on Nationstates for three years (so young). Outside of the listed experiences, I have not had the opportunity to serve any other regions. I've laid low across Nationstates, preferring the community I have had in my region.

Despite what might be thought of my previous term, I feel I served the position as well as I possibly could. I hope to make the coming term, should I be elected, even better than my previous.

Should you have any questions or comments, feel free to voice them. Thank you.

 

[Tomb]

Good luck, Kialga.

~ Tomb

 

[Kialga]

Thank you, Tomb.

 

[Belschaft]

At present there is proposed legislation before the Assembly that would enable a transition from an adversarial to a non-adversarial justice system.

1. As you understand it, what is the distinction between an adversarial and a non-adversarial justice system?
2. Of the two systems, which do you think is better suited for TNP?

 

[Kialga]

1. An adversarial system requires both parties are responsible for presenting evidence for their argument, while a non-adversarial system would have the judiciary responsible for finding the facts of the case.

2. I feel the non-adversarial system would benefit the TNP justice system. However, with almost anything, a system is only as good as its operators. While a non-adversarial system, in theory, would be extremely beneficial in speeding trials and reviews up, when we reach the end of the day, if the operators do not operate, the system will have the same outcome it always has.

 

[Flemingovia]

Grosse was quite scathing about your activity and your ability when he resigned from the bench.

for example:

My so-called colleagues on the Court have acted in a strangely bizarre manner, and frankly, I'm getting close to resigning in protest of their behavior ... There's only so much anyone should have to take in trying to deal with this level of deception and misdirection from both of them ... the actuall constant flip-flopping both of you have engaged in for weeks. No one in their right mind would put up with it .... The two of you are unworthy and unqualified to hold an office that you have repeatedly shown you do not understand.

Grosse is possibly the most experienced legal specialist we have in TNP. If, after trying to serve on a bench with you, this was his conclusion, why should you be given another term?

 

[Kialga]

I'm not even sure how to word this without it sounding like gibberish, but it turned into gibberish anyway.

Grosse and I stand at opposition with each other, and neither of us want to back off our opinion. Combine that with both parties having real-life priorities, it does not mesh well. Once Grosse resigned, the Court was able to come to an agreement. Grosse's opinion on my ability to serve is that, an opinion. That's for anyone to form on their own, and shouldn't be based solely on another opinion.

I worked well with Severisen and THO Cormac. I'm sure that Grosse and I could have worked well together as well, had either had any patience for the other. I believe that I should be given another term because I know I can serve the position well. If that's not the opinion of the voters, that's for them to decide.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

May I ask, can we trust you to make honest decisions and not flip flop, not that I am accusing you of such, but in the recent AG R4R concerning court ruling 1.1 there was much confusion, it was cleared up after Cormac was named THO and Grosse resigned, and I thank you for finally putting that issue to bed, however, per the thread: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7276072/1/
There seemed to be a misunderstanding at one point where Gross implicated that in private you and the other justices agreed with the ruling he made, but in public around page 4 or so it seemed to be made clear that you did not and that there was no consensus reached.

With all due respect with all that confusion going on how can the electorate be expected to elect any current justice on the bench to another term?

Thank you.

 

[Kialga]

A small bit of clarity, I never commented in the public thread before, during, or after the ruling was issued, so I'm confused as to why this question is being asked in the form to myself.

However, I can answer the general question you have posed. The two justices that remained on the bench after Grosse's resignation were able to resolve the issue quickly after naming a THO. As I stated previously, it was difficult when you had two Justices that weren't willing to back off their opinion.

I appreciate your concern, Paul, and your question. I will leave the electorate to their decision based on what they see. I know that I can provide a better example of my capabilities should I be elected again, but I will find it perfectly reasonable if I'm not. Thank you.

---

As a note, I apologize on the small delays in my responses. I'm suffering from a cold that doesn't like me.