Punks Jump to Get Re-elected!!

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
What is up party people?!

This was a fairly innocuous judicial term. There was one R4R, but I was on RL vacation (IIRC) when the ruling was handed down. Other than that there has been no requests for rulings and the one potential criminal case has not been moved forward by our sitting delegate or the complainant.

So we'll see if anything commences shortly. We used to say and we may say again that everyone ran to the courts to resolve problems. That definitely was not the case this term and I do believe that perhaps the makeup of the court helped reduce the number of requests.

It also could be a function of a better working executive and legislature as well that we didn't have items to resolve. Whatever the case may be I look forward to gaining your vote and am open to any questions you may have!
 
plembobria:
Syrixia:
How do you plan to beat Plembobria's flawless judicial legacy?
Click to expand...
<_<
Click to expand...
:lol:

In all seriousness, though, what I was hinting at is, how will you act when in court? Fast and effectice or slow and boring?
 
Syrixia:
How do you plan to beat Plembobria's flawless judicial legacy?
Click to expand...
Well....I only need to get the 3rd highest number of votes to win.

I'd love to see my current fellow justices reelected, honestly. I wish we would have had more to do, but I am confident that we would have worked well together had we been given more opportunities to do so.

I hope that we get the chance assuming Flem is in the race.
 
Syrixia:
In all seriousness, though, what I was hinting at is, how will you act when in court? Fast and effectice or slow and boring?
Click to expand...
Lol. :clap: :lol: I meant this.
 
Well...I'd love expedient and effective above all else. Sometimes going too fast hurts though. I have also found being too transparent is not effective so I will definitely go with expedient and effective but very willing to go slow to try to get things right.
 
I have a question. The R4R of this term, being the only one that the Court did, was on RMB suppression and was submitted by Democratic Donkeys. While you claim to have been away, the decision the Court made was subpar at best. Considering the power of precedent the Court has, do you, in retrospect have any thoughts on what could've been improved, or were you impressed by the decision made my the Court?
 
Right, so I was definitely away as noted in the decision.

I have to check the notes back then but I wanted to hear from both Eluvatar and DD on the matter to understand better. Elu is a bit quirky but I find him to be consistently quirky. He has principles and I have never seen him stray from those principles as quirky as they may seem to me. DD is at times bombastic but I believe always has the best interests in mind for the region. I thought it odd they found themselves on opposite poles.

I won't comment on the specific wording of the ruling itself, but say that had I not been AFK at the time, I would have attempted to bring the two parties together to understand the context. After understanding that I would have made a ruling. I can't say how I would have ruled because I never got a very good sense of the context.

But I believe both Elu and DD are readily available and that is what I would have pushed for us to do prior to making the decision.I hope that answers your question.
 
Thank you for being willing to stand for one of the most thankless jobs here in TNP.

I have a couple of questions (that I will be posing to all Justice candidates):

1. What is your legal opinion of the last criminal trial held before the Court?
2. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you agree with?
3. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you disagree with?

Thank you.
 
Very good questions.

I will address these a littler later today. One thing I can assure you is that I won't take the easy way out and not answer the question. I will take a position.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Thank you for being willing to stand for one of the most thankless jobs here in TNP.

I have a couple of questions (that I will be posing to all Justice candidates):

1. What is your legal opinion of the last criminal trial held before the Court?
2. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you agree with?
3. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you disagree with?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
1. My legal opinion is that Tomb appointed a team that didn't represent him well. In TNP we do not have trained legal representatives so I do not feel the court is compelled whatsoever to ensure the quality of representation chosen by defendants or complainants whichever the case may be.

The Bill of Rights state - "A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing." and Tomb chose RPI (it seems) and also added "I hereby name: Mall, Belscaht, and Romanoffia as my defense counsel."

Thus naming his defense team Tomb exercised his Right under the Bill of Rights and those selections were recognized by the Court. Tomb further clarified this point in saying:

I wish to make it known first of all that I have composed a defense counsel that will be representing me as my Attorneys. In addition to that, I do want to make it apparent that I have cancelled my Leave of Absence due to inclement weather in the Honduras that could probably hinder my missionary group's activities. So therefore, the court may start the case procedures at their pleasure.
Click to expand...

emphasis added.

However, after this fairly active participation by the defendant, he and his defense team dropped off the map. The prosecution presented it's case and it should be made clear that Nations are innocent until proven guilty. Were I Justice on the court at that time, I do agree with the court that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that a crime had been committed. Defense remained silent and presented no counter evidence.

So the question is, was the court obligated to ensure that the defense had an "adequate" (it's difficult to define this term) and to that I say no. I say a hell no, actually.

Nations are free to do as they please and Tomb chose his team and that team represented him poorly. Should a court be compelled to ensure defense counsel are competent or not continue proceedings or worse still find defendants not guilty due to attorney incompetence? I don't think so.

Instead, I agree with the Court's decision and would have done the same.

2. As stated above, I agree with the ruling. I don't feel it warrants further elucidation.

3. I'm not sure this is a disagreement but more of an administrative thing. Plemboria stated he would contact the defendant and counsel (I'm sure he did), but I think I would have gone a step further and let the record reflect the content and number of times contact was attempted. Additionally, I would have clarified that naming counsel and then not appearing is not an adequate defense. I believe the court should have ruled on the matter. While precedent was set, no guidelines were really established and I think the court could have done a little better in establishing its reasoning for not delaying the proceeding and eventually coming to a verdict.

I hope this answers your questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top