LL for the Court; Ep.6 Return of the Lore

[Just a Lore]

In my grand tradition I am not going to give you any sort of extensive campaign.

I have been on the court a few times now and have completed each term I have been elected too. I believe I am a competent Justice and am very engaged with the community in my roles as Security Councillor, and Forum Cartography Lead.

So I open this up to the people who want to ask questions or comment.

 

[Dreadton]

DO you think plea deals should be part of our judicial process? Is it supported, prevented, or is established law and precedent silent on the issue?

 

[Just a Lore]

DO you think plea deals should be part of our judicial process? Is it supported, prevented, or is established law and precedent silent on the issue?

If a fair sentence is handed down and all parties involved feel that it is the in the best interest of the region I do not see why Plea Deals should not be part of the process. And as far as I have seen, there is no law or rule that allows or disallows Plea Deals but there is precedent in for instance the MadJack case where 3 charges were dropped for a guilty plea. So its more of an convenience of the laws we have then an actual process set down by the law.


On the other hand I do worry that an over-reliance on Plea Deals could lead to harsher and harsher sentences designed to confess to a crime rather then to actually get to the truth.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

The North Pacific Army is planning an invasion of a small user created region that is currently founderless. They invite a friendly region to join the server as well. NPA Officer A (who uses a proxy to mask their real identity) notices this uptick in activity and alerts his friend in the small user created region to be on high alert as they may be targeted in the operation. The region in question immediately contacts the Minister of Defence to demand that their home region not be invaded and they provide a screenshot of NPA Officer A warning them of the likelihood of the invasion. The Minister of Defence bans NPA Officer A from the NPA server and removes them from the NPA roster. The Minister of Defence then orders for the invasion of the region in question and it's destruction. It is a black op, so nobody can tell that NPA soldiers are perpetrating it. The NPA Officers invade the region and ban as many natives as they can, suppress every post on the regional message board, and closes all embassies. The Minister of Defence posts briefly about noticing operation in the #citizens-chat on the discord server but otherwise doesn't mention it on the regional forum. When asked, the Minister of Defence denies knowing who is behind the operation. "A Nation" from the invaded region appears on our regional message board and starts to blame The North Pacific for the invasion. They get into an argument with the Vice Delegate who ejects and bans them writing on the RMB "That is what you get for disrespecting your elders". While this is going on, NPA Soldier A who is a new member of the NPA posts in the citizens-chat in confusion and confesses that the Minister of Defence and the NPA are behind the destructive action. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly, the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Culture are also members of the NPA and participating in this operation. The Minister of Defence admits that this is an NPA operation.

Discuss any potential criminal offences or breaches of law that have occurred in this scenario. I would encourage you to refer to specific sections of the legal code, constitution and bill of rights if they are relevant. Previous case law may also be of value to this scenario. Where you lack information or require further information you should elaborate on what detail you require.

 

[Just a Lore]

-snip-

Discuss any potential criminal offences or breaches of law that have occurred in this scenario. I would encourage you to refer to specific sections of the legal code, constitution and bill of rights if they are relevant. Previous case law may also be of value to this scenario. Where you lack information or require further information you should elaborate on what detail you require.

I didn't know that I was running for the office of Attorney General. I honestly feel a little uncomfortable answering such a question because it is not the job of the Court to identify crimes, compile evidence, or charge people with crimes.

The Job of the Court is to protect the rights of the citizens and residents of the region as per the laws of that Assembly has set along with final arbitration on the actions of its citizens and residents. If I bothered myself with the identifying of crimes prior to the AG filing charges with the court then I would effectively be part of the prosecution and would conflict myself by automatically positioning myself anti-defendant.

This is especially because the Court is reactive by nature. We can not initiate cases or open criminal probes. We can only act as a neutral body to weigh on the evidence compiled by the AG's Office against the Evidence presented by the Defense while trying to determine intent, remorse and other relevant factors.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

5-stars, that. I see Chief Justice in your future.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I didn't know that I was running for the office of Attorney General. I honestly feel a little uncomfortable answering such a question because it is not the job of the Court to identify crimes, compile evidence, or charge people with crimes.

The Job of the Court is to protect the rights of the citizens and residents of the region as per the laws of that Assembly has set along with final arbitration on the actions of its citizens and residents. If I bothered myself with the identifying of crimes prior to the AG filing charges with the court then I would effectively be part of the prosecution and would conflict myself by automatically positioning myself anti-defendant.

This is especially because the Court is reactive by nature. We can not initiate cases or open criminal probes. We can only act as a neutral body to weigh on the evidence compiled by the AG's Office against the Evidence presented by the Defense while trying to determine intent, remorse and other relevant factors.

The question is a very basic examination format question that is asking anyone who answers it to demonstrate that they understand how the application of the legal code, the bill of rights, and the constitution (if relevant) comes into play. It does not ask you to consider the position from the perspective of the Attorney General. It is this kind of reasoning that anyone who works within the legal field would be expected to be competent in - and confident to answer, even for hypothetical situations. There is absolutely no logical reason to be uncomfortable with it.

As a Court Justice you should be able to identify from that scenario what the applicable law is. You should be able to identify what the bill of rights violations are. You should be able to identify where there is clearly no case to answer. The public does not see how the determinations of these judgements work behind the scene. So being a Court Justice before tell us nothing of your understanding of the law.

I would suggest you answer the question properly.

The question is not about what the court is, or about what being a judge is, or what you feel comfortable doing. It is about what sections of our body of law are likely to apply and be relevant to that scenario.

5-stars, that. I see Chief Justice in your future.

It is hard to take you seriously when you post that after a non-answer. I legitimately have no idea if you're trolling.

 

[Praetor]

Do you have any reply to COE's reply to your reply to his reply, etc. on the election-commission channel on Discord?

For reference COE's reply is below:

"[Lore Lore]:I honestly think its a little bit of an oversight that if a commissioner is actually absent from an election they can't be declared absent. <<< I think it would be an oversight if a commissioner could be involuntarily stripped of the powers granted to them by the delegate and RA through any process that did not involve the RA

And a reminder that anyone who doesn't log in for two weeks is automatically removed from office

So "actually absent" is NOT in the eye of the beholder, it is in the eye of the law

And the law is quite clear:

15. An Election Commissioner will be considered absent during any election in which they are a candidate, or during which their term started or is scheduled to end.

And in case any more clarity is needed:

10. An "absence" in an office means that the holder of the office is by law temporarily prevented from exercising the duties of their office. An absent officer may be replaced for the duration of their absence as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.

"

In particular, my question is whether your statement of "actually absent" was a figure of speech or a legal interpretation?

 

[Just a Lore]

~snip~

It would be improper of me to continue a discussion in regards to the management of the Election Commission while I am a sitting candidate and absent from the Commission, which is why I did not respond to what you have quoted. Furthermore I would like to ask how the operations of the Election Commission has anything to do with my campaign for Justice.

 

[Just a Lore]

The question is a very basic examination format question that is asking anyone who answers it to demonstrate that they understand how the application of the legal code, the bill of rights, and the constitution (if relevant) comes into play. It does not ask you to consider the position from the perspective of the Attorney General. It is this kind of reasoning that anyone who works within the legal field would be expected to be competent in - and confident to answer, even for hypothetical situations. There is absolutely no logical reason to be uncomfortable with it.

As a Court Justice you should be able to identify from that scenario what the applicable law is. You should be able to identify what the bill of rights violations are. You should be able to identify where there is clearly no case to answer. The public does not see how the determinations of these judgements work behind the scene. So being a Court Justice before tell us nothing of your understanding of the law.

I would suggest you answer the question properly.

The question is not about what the court is, or about what being a judge is, or what you feel comfortable doing. It is about what sections of our body of law are likely to apply and be relevant to that scenario.

My response is entirely based upon what I believe that the Court is. If you want a TNP lawyer who has encyclopedic knowledge of the legal code and the current standing precedent I am going to be honest and say you are not going to find it in me. Nor would I want a group of TNP lawyers on the Court. I want the lawyers in the AG's Office keeping a vigilant eye to bring things to the Court.

I won't answer the hypothetical because as far as I see it it is not a question for a Justice. The Courts are a slow body that carefully weighs what has been presented in-front of it not an active body that searches out for crimes. I'm not here because I can at the drop of a pin narrow down the crimes that any random individual may of committed. I am here because I feel that I am trust worthy enough that when the AG does that part I will take a look at all the parts that the Prosecution and the Defense lay before me, reference the material necessary, and I will steadfastly stick to my ideals and the letter of the law to be the last arbiter against those who have wronged the community in this forum and the last chance for those who have been wrongly accused.

 

[Praetor]

It would be improper of me to continue a discussion in regards to the management of the Election Commission while I am a sitting candidate and absent from the Commission, which is why I did not respond to what you have quoted. Furthermore I would like to ask how the operations of the Election Commission has anything to do with my campaign for Justice.

Your response is noted. The question was not about the operations of the Election Commission but rather your interpretation of a legal term.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

It is hard to take you seriously when you post that after a non-answer. I legitimately have no idea if you're trolling.

Expressing support for an individual's campaign - in the candidate's campaign thread - should never be characterized as trolling.

While I find the scenarios presented by McM to be engaging and well thought-out, I think LL makes a valid and refreshingly unexpected argument.

 

[Syrixia]

Expressing support for an individual's campaign - in the candidate's campaign thread - should never be characterized as trolling.

While I find the scenarios presented by McM to be engaging and well thought-out, I think LL makes a valid and refreshingly unexpected argument.

As do I.

 

[Darcania]

Sure are some interesting antics to avoid answering any questions. Frankly, at this point you're rather well-known for these kinds of antics with regards to the law. I think the Court is rather silly enough as-is, we don't need more antics on the bench.