Dreadton For Justice

[Dreadton]

Yes, that's right despite all hints otherwise, I am running again and looking for a second term on the court.

Some of my past Rulings and Briefs:

[R4R] The North Pacific v Whole India Sentencing Appeal
[R4R] On the Form of the Oath of a Delegate
[R4R] Gross Misconduct & the vagueness doctrine
[R4R] The power of the Speaker to require Deputy Speakers to break their oath
Prosecution of Pigeonstan
Ruled on TNP vs. Bobberino

While I was not always on the "winning side" when appearing before the court, I present my legal opinion to the best of my ability. Anyone who has worked with (or against me) on a case or brief can testify to the dedication and effort I put into my legal work. I hope from this you can see my abilities as Justice and the dedication I would bring to the cases brought before the court.



Setting up for the Future

One of the issues that the region seems to have is with getting people interested in being a prosecutor, Defense Counsel, or Justice. I think this has two reasons. First, the legal area of the game is aa rather low interest area to begin with. Second, over our history we have built up a body of laws and cases that may seem daunting to someone new. While I can not do anything about the first reason, the region has suggested a legal bar in various forms. What I would like to do is build a legal program to help those who are interested, learn our laws, cases, legal research, and basics of legal writing. The first step in building this, is reformatting the Court Ruling section of the Laws, to make it easier to search and cite. The second step is to build a basic legal education program for people to use, ether on their own or under the guidance of a mentor. Finally, I would like to build a bar exam for people to take and demonstrate the ability to handle a case or R4R. While these seems like a bare bones project, the amount of work needed to accomplish this is likely going to last longer then one term. Judaical input on this project, and building off of past ideas will make this project more likely to succeed. If this project works, we have a base line to codify in our legal code. If not, then we have a strong foundation to help build the next idea.



As always, I take questions.

DREADTON

 

[Tim Kasto]

Very nice campaign, no questions needed.

 

[Robespierre]

You’ve obviously given considerable thought to this run and have even been foreshadowing it for months by this point. Clearly you’re a candidate who’s prepared to take on the office of Justice once again and you’ve obviously shown in the past that you can put your best foot forward and dedicate yourself to your work and briefs.

That being said, if there’s one reason I shouldn’t vote for you, tell me it

 

[Cretox]

1. Let's say your goal is to transform the Court into a cesspit of conspiratorial slime sitting atop a minefield of segregated political alliances and treason without getting thrown out office before the term is up. How would you do it?

2. The Delegate is accused of Treason, and the Vice Delegate is accused of Conspiracy regarding that alleged crime. How would a prosecutor be appointed for the Delegate's case, assuming charges are accepted? How would this case procedurally differ from one in which the Delegate is accused of Espionage with the Speaker being accused of Conspiracy to Commit Espionage? Cite evidence from the Constibillicode.

3. Any changes to the Constibillicode you'd like to see? Doesn't have to be specifically related to the Court.

 

[Pallaith]

What did you think of the Court reversing its ruling on convicting MadJack two terms ago? Was this properly resolved? The Court this term tried to mitigate some of went wrong in that case by amending it’s procedures, have you had a chance to review that change? Do you think it would help prevent the shenanigans that happened in that case, or is something more substantial needed? Or do you feel it is what it is and no change needs to be made in response to that case’s outcome?

 

[Dreadton]

1. Pass Legislation dissolving the court and setting up a random citizens tribunal that relies on feelings and not facts.

2a. Assuming the Delegate doesn't grant himself and the Vice Delegate, an exemption under 1.10.26 (Which would be an interesting case itself.) Legal code §3.3.12 holds that the next in the line of succession will appoint the prosecutor. §3.3.16 holds that no one can appoint a prosecutor in a case in which they are the defendant or part of the defense However, you could argue that the case against the Delegate and Vice Delegate are two separate cases, which would mean the Vice Delegate could appoint the Prosecutor for the Delegates case and vice versa; if each claims they will not be using the other as part of their defense. The intent of the law is clear from the RA debate that this is not the way the RA intends for this to happen and the law is intended for both from being disqualified from appointing prosecutors, in which case, Ghost being next in the line of succession would appoint prosecutors in both cases.

2b. The biggest difference is that the Vice Delegate will picking the prosecutor as next in the line of succession. But now there is a new issue as the Speaker would be able to hold off the debate and voting on the prosecutor. Such action would hopefully end with the Speakers recall, however the 30 days for the RA to sign off on a Prosecutor would likely be up by then (LC §3.3.15.) That then produces another issue as the Speaker has to give consent and there is no option for an alternative until the Speaker is removed.

3. Besides the issue I pointed out in question 2, I think the SC FOIA law needs some tweaking. But that is an issue for the RA not the Court at this time.

 

[Dreadton]

What did you think of the Court reversing its ruling on convicting MadJack two terms ago? Was this properly resolved? The Court this term tried to mitigate some of went wrong in that case by amending it’s procedures, have you had a chance to review that change? Do you think it would help prevent the shenanigans that happened in that case, or is something more substantial needed? Or do you feel it is what it is and no change needs to be made in response to that case’s outcome?

Following procedure in a case is vital. Having established procedure helps ensure that the defendant is given a fair trial. Adding and correcting procedures over time is something that benfits the court as it comes across more unique situations, but the procedures are only as good as the people who are following them. That being said, issuing a ruling then suddenly reversing the ruling is embarrassing and not something the court should have a habit of doing.