falapatorius
TNPer
NS Background:
I was founded in TNP, and have remained here for 2+ years. I've been an RA member pretty much since I joined the off-site forum, and contributed to various discussions. My only experience in the Executive Staff was serving as ambassador to Mordor for a short time. I was Deputy AG to Gracius Maximus for a half term (the team successfully prosecuted a Gross Misconduct case), and I was elected AG the following term. Legislative discussion/debate has always interested me, and I suppose seeking a Justice position is a logical progression from Attorney General.
Judicial Leanings:
I wouldn't characterize myself as an *activist* type of Justice. I have no legal agenda other than what the Justice position entails. Legislative change is the purview of the RA. My approach to criminal trials is to let the facts speak for themselves. The Legal Code is quite clear on criminal offences. Creative interpretation should be discouraged imo. A crime is a crime. Period. A defendant's political status in NS/TNP would have no bearing on a case I may be tasked with. Granted, that's relatively easy for me to do as I'm not what you'd call an NS/TNP insider (as it were). I don't use IRC, but that's not to say I'm inactive though. I login to the forum at least once a day, multiple times on the RMB. I've even dipped my toes in the roiling waters of the NS Gameplay forum on rare occasions.
I will be around if needed.
Requests for Review require a different approach. The issue at hand needs to be measured against the Constibillicode, and precedent is a factor (unless that is being reviewed). As opposed to criminal matters, which are clearly spelt out for the most part, R4Rs sometimes deal with vague areas in the Law (loopholes in some instances). Part of the Court's mandate is to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the Law. A straight line approach would be counterproductive in that sense. Consensus among the Justices is ideal, so a degree of flexibility would be beneficial and in the best interests of the region.
Comments:
It is good to see more than 3 candidates running this cycle. I wish them all luck. Feel free to ask questions, but I will respectfully decline to answer any questions about how I would rule in a hypothetical case. It may come up before the Court, and I'd have to recuse myself. Thank you.
* to all the tl;dr folks.. vote for me!
*
I was founded in TNP, and have remained here for 2+ years. I've been an RA member pretty much since I joined the off-site forum, and contributed to various discussions. My only experience in the Executive Staff was serving as ambassador to Mordor for a short time. I was Deputy AG to Gracius Maximus for a half term (the team successfully prosecuted a Gross Misconduct case), and I was elected AG the following term. Legislative discussion/debate has always interested me, and I suppose seeking a Justice position is a logical progression from Attorney General.
Judicial Leanings:
I wouldn't characterize myself as an *activist* type of Justice. I have no legal agenda other than what the Justice position entails. Legislative change is the purview of the RA. My approach to criminal trials is to let the facts speak for themselves. The Legal Code is quite clear on criminal offences. Creative interpretation should be discouraged imo. A crime is a crime. Period. A defendant's political status in NS/TNP would have no bearing on a case I may be tasked with. Granted, that's relatively easy for me to do as I'm not what you'd call an NS/TNP insider (as it were). I don't use IRC, but that's not to say I'm inactive though. I login to the forum at least once a day, multiple times on the RMB. I've even dipped my toes in the roiling waters of the NS Gameplay forum on rare occasions.
I will be around if needed.Requests for Review require a different approach. The issue at hand needs to be measured against the Constibillicode, and precedent is a factor (unless that is being reviewed). As opposed to criminal matters, which are clearly spelt out for the most part, R4Rs sometimes deal with vague areas in the Law (loopholes in some instances). Part of the Court's mandate is to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the Law. A straight line approach would be counterproductive in that sense. Consensus among the Justices is ideal, so a degree of flexibility would be beneficial and in the best interests of the region.
Comments:
It is good to see more than 3 candidates running this cycle. I wish them all luck. Feel free to ask questions, but I will respectfully decline to answer any questions about how I would rule in a hypothetical case. It may come up before the Court, and I'd have to recuse myself. Thank you.
* to all the tl;dr folks.. vote for me!
*
This situation could cause a unique headache imo. I'd rather not get into specifics though. I would suggest you read Section 3.2 of the Legal Code to see if it stands out for you. Yeah.. I know, I'm not really answering you, but change is best left for an R4R or the RA.
