Zyvetskistaahn for Justice

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Zyvetskistaahn for Justice​

Hello, I'm Zyvetskistaahn and I am running for the office of Justice in this Judicial election. I have held other offices in TNP, namely those of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, however, of the candidates, I believe I am the least experience in terms of direct involvement in the Judicial branch (three of my opponents have been Justices, the one who has not has recently served as a Temporary Hearing Officer). Nonetheless, I have experience in making decisions on the meaning of TNP's laws, it is a necessary part of being Speaker that one must interpret the Constibillocode and the RA Rules in the context of the Assembly's business and in relation to admitting and removing citizens, and I believe I did so well as Speaker. I also having experience interpreting and applying the law in relation to elections, having served as Election Commissioner and having commissioned special elections as Speaker.

If you have any particular questions, I would be happy to answer them.

 

[Darcania]

1. Do you believe Pallaith and Ornge, or even the Speaker's office in general, could handle your absence, considering you've been in the Speaker's office for so long now?
2. If elected, will you continue to be dictatorial, arbitrary and capricious?
3. The Court, similarly to the position of Speaker, has a strong tendency to only have experienced Justices; even past THOs have failed multiple times to be elected to the Court. In this case, only two previous Justices are running (no, I don't know if Mall previously served and I am not counting him either way). Is there any particular reason, beyond simply having new blood in the Court, the voters should vote for you over Barbarossistan, an ex-THO endorsed by one of the current Justices?
4. Are you aware that you used the incorrect color in the OP, assuming you meant to use the same color as the Justice mask? The correct color is [nocode]Indigo[/nocode], which is color code #4B0082, not #9300C4.
5. What, if any, part of the Court Rules and Procedures would you propose to change?

 

[abc]

Hello.

2 Questions:
What do you hope to change if elected?
Would you give up your job as deputy speaker if elected or remain in that job as well?

 

[Darcania]

Would you give up your job as deputy speaker if elected or remain in that job as well?

Legally, he cannot, as the Constitution forbids holding both the positions of Deputy Speaker and Justice simultaneously.

 

[Barbarossistan]

A question if you will.

You have considerable experience in the Speaker's office, but none in the judicial branch. What makes you desire this move to the judiciary over a political function?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

1. Do you believe Pallaith and Ornge, or even the Speaker's office in general, could handle your absence, considering you've been in the Speaker's office for so long now?
2. If elected, will you continue to be dictatorial, arbitrary and capricious?
3. The Court, similarly to the position of Speaker, has a strong tendency to only have experienced Justices; even past THOs have failed multiple times to be elected to the Court. In this case, only two previous Justices are running (no, I don't know if Mall previously served and I am not counting him either way). Is there any particular reason, beyond simply having new blood in the Court, the voters should vote for you over Barbarossistan, an ex-THO endorsed by one of the current Justices?
4. Are you aware that you used the incorrect color in the OP, assuming you meant to use the same color as the Justice mask? The correct color is [nocode]Indigo[/nocode], which is color code #4B0082, not #9300C4.
5. What, if any, part of the Court Rules and Procedures would you propose to change?

1. I have every confidence that the Speaker's Office can manage without me.
2. Yes
3. A particular reason? No. Generally, I have a wider experience in TNP's law and I am, if I may say, fairly good at interpreting it, judging by relative lack of complaint at interpretations I took as Speaker and as a Commissioner. However, I have not had many interactions with Barbarossistan and cannot say whether I consider his interpretive skills better or worse than my own.
4. No, I care only about the subtle distinctions in colour when they are relevant to the Speaker's Office
5. I would perhaps wish to see an more fulsome Chapter dealing with Requests for Review, including a period for some back-and-forth questioning between the Court and interested parties (the petitioner, the AG, any impugned officials, for instance), however, I am not sure quite how that would be structured and it would, of course, be subject to the views of oters on the Court. (I should note, it is not necessarily the case that such questions would require changes to the CRP, as they have been asked to officials (including myself in my capacity as Speaker) and others in the past, however, I think a more defined structure could be beneficial and encourage the wider use of such questions)
   

Hello.

2 Questions:
What do you hope to change if elected?
Would you give up your job as deputy speaker if elected or remain in that job as well?

• In the main, I do not hope to change anything. The Court's primary function is reactive, not proactive.
• I would be required to step down as Deputy Speaker by operation of law, as is noted in the above post by Darcania

A question if you will.

You have considerable experience in the Speaker's office, but none in the judicial branch. What makes you desire this move to the judiciary over a political function?

I believe that there ought to be some rotation in the staff of government in TNP, that is why I did not stand for election as Speaker and why I intend to end my participation in it as a Deputy. The Judiciary seemed to be the place where I could best put my skills from the Speaker's Office to use and where my fairly long running impartiality as Speaker would be of benefit. Further, of the times where I have been in the executive in NS, I have generally found it to be the least enjoyable, compared to my time in legislative and judicial roles.

 

[Darcania]

A few follow-up questions, if you don't mind.

A particular reason? No. Generally, I have a wider experience in TNP's law and I am, if I may say, fairly good at interpreting it, judging by relative lack of complaint at interpretations I took as Speaker and as a Commissioner. However, I have not had many interactions with Barbarossistan and cannot say whether I consider his interpretive skills better or worse than my own.

Based on my work with you during the last judicial Special Election for Justice, and my other interactions with you during my time in the RA, I agree that you have a strong grasp of the law, and have experience interpreting it even outside of the Court. But what about the general rules and procedures of the Court? Do you believe you have at least a strong enough grasp of those that you could dive right in to Court duty? And what about criminal cases? Do you believe yourself capable of, if not moderating the trial, working with the other Justices and interpreting arguments from the defense and prosecution to reach a fair ruling and, if necessary, sentence?

No, I care only about the subtle distinctions in colour when they are relevant to the Speaker's Office

I see how it is. I am led to believe, then, that in truth you care little for the Court in general; is this correct?

I would perhaps wish to see an more fulsome Chapter dealing with Requests for Review, including a period for some back-and-forth questioning between the Court and interested parties (the petitioner, the AG, any impugned officials, for instance), however, I am not sure quite how that would be structured and it would, of course, be subject to the views of oters on the Court. (I should note, it is not necessarily the case that such questions would require changes to the CRP, as they have been asked to officials (including myself in my capacity as Speaker) and others in the past, however, I think a more defined structure could be beneficial and encourage the wider use of such questions)

Beyond the opinion of the others in the Court, if you go forward with this, would you discuss it with the Attorney General and other interested parties, like previous R4R petitioners?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

A few follow-up questions, if you don't mind.

A particular reason? No. Generally, I have a wider experience in TNP's law and I am, if I may say, fairly good at interpreting it, judging by relative lack of complaint at interpretations I took as Speaker and as a Commissioner. However, I have not had many interactions with Barbarossistan and cannot say whether I consider his interpretive skills better or worse than my own.

Based on my work with you during the last judicial Special Election for Justice, and my other interactions with you during my time in the RA, I agree that you have a strong grasp of the law, and have experience interpreting it even outside of the Court. But what about the general rules and procedures of the Court? Do you believe you have at least a strong enough grasp of those that you could dive right in to Court duty? And what about criminal cases? Do you believe yourself capable of, if not moderating the trial, working with the other Justices and interpreting arguments from the defense and prosecution to reach a fair ruling and, if necessary, sentence?

I believe that I do enjoy a sufficient grasp of the Court's procedures to take up Court activity immediately (should that be necessary), that belief carries over to criminal matters also.

No, I care only about the subtle distinctions in colour when they are relevant to the Speaker's Office

I see how it is. I am led to believe, then, that in truth you care little for the Court in general; is this correct?

No, pink is simply a better colour, with intricacies that require greater attention.

I would perhaps wish to see an more fulsome Chapter dealing with Requests for Review, including a period for some back-and-forth questioning between the Court and interested parties (the petitioner, the AG, any impugned officials, for instance), however, I am not sure quite how that would be structured and it would, of course, be subject to the views of oters on the Court. (I should note, it is not necessarily the case that such questions would require changes to the CRP, as they have been asked to officials (including myself in my capacity as Speaker) and others in the past, however, I think a more defined structure could be beneficial and encourage the wider use of such questions)

Beyond the opinion of the others in the Court, if you go forward with this, would you discuss it with the Attorney General and other interested parties, like previous R4R petitioners?

I would hope that amendments to the Court rules would be carried out in consultation with those with legal expertise in the region, that would include the Attorney General and it may include some of those who have petitioned for review (practically speaking, it could not include all of them, if only because some are no longer in the game), as well as others who have expertise. Whether such consultations were, in fact, carried out may depend on the other members of the Court, as I would not wish to act in a manner that was not collegial, however, I would presume that they would be open to such consultation.