Plembobria for Justice

[plembobria]

Hello folks! I'm running for justice again. if elected, I will try my best to make the court operate efficiently. I am an active member of this region. I'm TNP's best bet for improving the Court.

I request your vote. Thank you.

 

[plembobria]

Here's an ugly campaign button:

 

[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?

 

[SillyString]

Of the rulings issued by the Court in the past year, which one do you most disagree with and why?

If elected, what changes would you want to make to the Adopted Court Rules?

 

[plembobria]

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?

1. A non-adversarial system is an investigation conducted by judges, rather than a constant argument between two sides moderated by a judge.

2. A non-adversarial system. TNP courts are a joke. Criminal trials are simply circuses. A non-adversarial system is necessary in my opinion.

Of the rulings issued by the Court in the past year, which one do you most disagree with and why?

I agree with all the rulings issued by the court in the last year. I also affirm that I have actually read them. I don't claim to be some expert on TNP law. I am quite familiar with it, but I admit that I'll have plenty to learn if I'm elected.

If elected, what changes would you want to make to the Adopted Court Rules?

I think the moderating justice should be able to decide if someone is in contempt of court, and I think that justices should be allowed to post in public gallery forums on the status of the case, provided they don't divulge any details of the case.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

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?

1. A non-adversarial system is an investigation conducted by judges, rather than a constant argument between two sides moderated by a judge.

2. A non-adversarial system. TNP courts are a joke. Criminal trials are simply circuses. A non-adversarial system is necessary in my opinion.

Of the rulings issued by the Court in the past year, which one do you most disagree with and why?

I agree with all the rulings issued by the court in the last year. I also affirm that I have actually read them. I don't claim to be some expert on TNP law. I am quite familiar with it, but I admit that I'll have plenty to learn if I'm elected.

If elected, what changes would you want to make to the Adopted Court Rules?

I think the moderating justice should be able to decide if someone is in contempt of court, and I think that justices should be allowed to post in public gallery forums on the status of the case, provided they don't divulge any details of the case.

How many criminal trials have you personally observed in TNP?

I ask because you make the claim that the TNP Courts are a joke and that the criminal trials are 'simply circuses' and yet it seems that you registered in September of 2014. I believe the last criminal trial to take place here was in May 2014.

Also, if you are familiar with the criminal trial system here then you would quickly realize that it isn't necessarily the system that is a joke, but, more often than not, those running the system.

The fallback defense of 'the system sucks' tends to be the default answer for those that struggle in the role of Justice.

I am not stating that you are incorrect, but since it is the system we are currently stuck with it would make sense, at least to me, for a candidate to speak more to how to work well within the system than to bemoan its deficiencies.

 

[plembobria]

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?

1. A non-adversarial system is an investigation conducted by judges, rather than a constant argument between two sides moderated by a judge.

2. A non-adversarial system. TNP courts are a joke. Criminal trials are simply circuses. A non-adversarial system is necessary in my opinion.

Of the rulings issued by the Court in the past year, which one do you most disagree with and why?

I agree with all the rulings issued by the court in the last year. I also affirm that I have actually read them. I don't claim to be some expert on TNP law. I am quite familiar with it, but I admit that I'll have plenty to learn if I'm elected.

If elected, what changes would you want to make to the Adopted Court Rules?

I think the moderating justice should be able to decide if someone is in contempt of court, and I think that justices should be allowed to post in public gallery forums on the status of the case, provided they don't divulge any details of the case.

How many criminal trials have you personally observed in TNP?

I ask because you make the claim that the TNP Courts are a joke and that the criminal trials are 'simply circuses' and yet it seems that you registered in September of 2014. I believe the last criminal trial to take place here was in May 2014.

Also, if you are familiar with the criminal trial system here then you would quickly realize that it isn't necessarily the system that is a joke, but, more often than not, those running the system.

The fallback defense of 'the system sucks' tends to be the default answer for those that struggle in the role of Justice.

I am not stating that you are incorrect, but since it is the system we are currently stuck with it would make sense, at least to me, for a candidate to speak more to how to work well within the system than to bemoan its deficiencies.

You are correct. I made a rather gross generalization.