Flemingovia for Justice

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
My position has not changed since the last time i stood for election.

I would point out that not only did i serve the full term, but i also stood by every promise I made last time and was elected on.

Here is the speech again:

Last time I stood for justice my opponent said I was the best candidate and urged everyone to vote for me and not for him. Naturally, I lost by a landslide. So don't hold your breath this time.

I could do the usual blah blah speech, but you all know the mantra by now. Justice candidates tend to promise the earth and then either prove to be piss-poor or disappear mid term. Well, I know our laws pretty well (I predate most of them) and I will not go inactive. You know that.

So what do i want to talk about?

First, I am not a great believer in the constitutional court. I think it is an absurd system for a game like this. It is better than it was, but it is unwieldy and byzantine. For years I avoided getting involved in a flawed system. But then I thought "well, if this is the system we have, we may as well have people who can at least try to make it work." So here I am.

Blunt Justice. Too many of our justices have been too nice, and have bent over backwards to accommodate any shit-stirrer who decides to play silly buggers. I have taken advantage of that a few times myself. If I am justice, if you make like a toddler and throw a tantrum, you will be told to piss off. If you play silly buggers with the court system, you will be told to piss off. If you beat your breast about how your human rights are being violated, you will be told to piss off. Do you see a theme emerging here.

Precedent I don't mind referring back to precedent, but I would not be a slave to it. If I think previous benches were wrong i would not apply or follow precedent, simple as that.

standing Our rules on standing were adopted to stop people playing silly buggers with the court and tying us up in knots with spurious R4Rs and appeals. Now there are some areas where there is a case that everyone in the RA, or everyone in the NPA etc is affected by a ruling and therefore has standing. This creates a certain grey area. On the whole, I think the court has got it about right so far. So expect little change from me (except I would not take a week to agonize over standing: You would be told to piss off (see above) quite quickly).

Term length Given all that I said above, I would expect to be recalled before the end of the term. Bear that in mind. My term would, at least, be entertaining while it lasts.

Finally, for no apparent reason and without any relevance to the above post, here is a photo of a cat dressed up as a lawyer:

CAT-LAWYER.jpg
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Why do you think people should consider you for Justice, following a ruling concerning DD's complaint about Suppression of Free Speech written by yourself that, while initially making a point and ruling that DD's free speech was inhinged on, quickly devolved into casuality and immaturity and ultimately dismissed the entire case altogether, even after making a ruling; which was a blatant affront to our legal system?

Yes, I know this is a game, but it is a political simulation game. Considering the nature of this game and how our legal system is set up, wouldn't it make sense to act like a mature judge when ruling? I have seen you can be serious, as exemplified by the Administration Team Changes announcement, so why weren't you in a COURT RULING?

Now, don't get me wrong, you have the experience (obviously) to do this job, but can you show your ability to be serious in the office of Justice?
 
Syrixia:
Why do you think people should consider you for Justice, following a ruling concerning DD's complaint about Suppression of Free Speech written by yourself that, while initially making a point and ruling that DD's free speech was inhinged on, quickly devolved into casuality and immaturity and ultimately dismissed the entire case altogether, even after making a ruling; which was a blatant affront to our legal system?

Yes, I know this is a game, but it is a political simulation game. Considering the nature of this game and how our legal system is set up, wouldn't it make sense to act like a mature judge when ruling? I have seen you can be serious, as exemplified by the Administration Team Changes announcement, so why weren't you in a COURT RULING?

Now, don't get me wrong, you have the experience (obviously) to do this job, but can you show your ability to be serious in the office of Justice?
Click to expand...
thank you for the question.

The ruling in question was succinct, timely and a masterpiece of drafting. it was perfect in every way. Therefore I do not understand your point about immaturity.

Casuality is not an English word that I recognise.

What WOULD have been an affront would have been if, once elected, I ignored the promises and the mandate that I had been elected on and produced the usual sort of ruling full of pretentious bullshit. that would have meant that I was a liar, which I am not.

So if you do not like my style of justice, fine, vote for someone else. But do not seek to criticising me for doing precisely what people voted me in to do.
 
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...
this is a difficult one for me to answer, since I was the one who brought the original complaint, and so find it hard to be objective in the matter. So if you detect any hesitancy in my reply, it is for this reason.

To answer all your questions in one, as the laws of TNP stand, I think the decision was the only one the courts could legally come to. I think as well, since free speech is highly valued in TNP, it was in keeping with the values as well as with the laws of the region. That was the best aspect of the trial, for me - the high regard free speech was given.

I think it is a flaw in our laws that we recognise no charge lower than gross conduct for this sort of charge. I wish there had been some lesser offence with which he could have been charged. That would have been more appropriate. Thus i felt that the three month penalty (which was under the discretion of the court) was harsh.

The worst aspect of the trial was probably the delays, and the leeway given to the defence team. This evokes some of the worst memories of TNP judicial history, and sets a bad precedent.

I hope that answers your questions, albeit in an unstructured way. Feel free to come back to me.
 
PS, I would have said that I thought the AG's team did particularly well in that trial - but that may have appeared like I was crawling.
 
Will you hold in contempt of court anyone who does not use the proper British Orthography? Will you also hold in contempt of court anyone who improperly uses the Oxford Comma?
 
Romanoffia:
Will you hold in contempt of court anyone who does not use the proper British Orthography? Will you also hold in contempt of court anyone who improperly uses the Oxford Comma?
Click to expand...
No. Although it warms the cockles of my heart to see proper orthography. Bird watching is such a relaxing hobby.
 
flemingovia:
PS, I would have said that I thought the AG's team did particularly well in that trial - but that may have appeared like I was crawling.
Click to expand...
I don't think I will ever see the day you pander for my vote.

A follow up question, based on your answers:

In what way would you change the current Court Rules to limit delays due to absenteeism?
 
Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
PS, I would have said that I thought the AG's team did particularly well in that trial - but that may have appeared like I was crawling.
Click to expand...
I don't think I will ever see the day you pander for my vote.

A follow up question, based on your answers:

In what way would you change the current Court Rules to limit delays due to absenteeism?
Click to expand...
I think there is - potentially - an issue where a defendant pleads Not guilty, appoints a defence team, then they all go off-grid.

In the tomb trial, the justices bent over backwards to engage with the defence team and defendant, to no avail.

Personally, I would exercise the court's power to appoint a defence counsel to represent an absentee defendant or replace an absentee counsel. It is not the ideal situation, but it is more ideal than having a trial put on hold.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Thank you for your answer.

I wonder if Court appointed defense might negatively clash with Article 7 of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that it does - although it sails closer to the line on that one than I would like in an ideal situation.

I think the right to a fair and impartial trial can be maintained if the court is sensible about who it appointed to represent a defendant.

the BOR states that "A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing." It does not say that they SHALL be so represented, and it states that the counsel is appointed in order to represent the nation. Nothing I have said removes the right of an accused to appoint someone who will represent them. However, an accused should not be able to use the loophole of appointing an inactive counsel to avoid or delay the judicial process.
 
Not to hijack the thread, but I am certain we have had court appointed defence attorneys in previous trials, I believe that Eluvatar served as one for the Haafingar and Hjaalmarch trial.
 
yes. I was asked specifically about the Tomb trial. Had I been presiding justice over that trial, that is what I would have done rather than accommodating the defence team in their silence.
 
flemingovia:
Democratic Donkeys:
You have my support! :D

Incidentally, is there a German word for the anticipation of experiencing schadenfreude? :rofl:
Click to expand...
I do not know. I do not speak German.
Click to expand...
Wartenimvorgriffaufjemandesblutigenuntergang.

I just made that one up. but the word "Blutrausch" (noun) would possibly convey such sentiments. Although the Old Norse word "Bludlosta" might be more accurate.


But seriously...

If elected to serve as a Justice, and if you attain the position of Chief Justice, will you require that all lawyers be called "Barristers", and require them to wear Frizz Tops?

1fgw41.jpg
 
Romanoffia:
But seriously...

If elected to serve as a Justice, and if you attain the position of Chief Justice, will you require that all lawyers be called "Barristers", and require them to wear Frizz Tops?

1fgw41.jpg
Click to expand...
In tnp we have no equivalent to the bar, chambers or the bar exam, so the answer is no.
 
flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
But seriously...

If elected to serve as a Justice, and if you attain the position of Chief Justice, will you require that all lawyers be called "Barristers", and require them to wear Frizz Tops?

1fgw41.jpg
Click to expand...
In tnp we have no equivalent to the bar, chambers or the bar exam, so the answer is no.
Click to expand...
Good answer! But will there be wigs?
 
I would like to say thank you to everyone who voted for me in the recent election. Alas, it was not to be, but I am grateful for your support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top