Lord Lore, A Justice who climbing out of a Graveyard.

[Just a Lore]

You guys threw me in a hole in the ground last cycle but I once again stand here before you.

I'm not going to waste your time with lofty promises, or detailed explanations of my view on every small minutia of TNP's sprawling ContiBilliCode.

I still stand by my belief that above all else the the Judiciary is a position of trust. You sit in a corner twiddling your thumbs until a fire starts somewhere in the region and it's your job to decide how to put it out. I have a long history of 6.5 Years in TNP and more then a little history in TNP Gov over that timespan. If you trust me to help put out the fires when they spring up, please consider voting for LL, Just a Person.

 

[Tim Kasto]

Tell me something personal so I know I can trust you

 

[Just a Lore]

Tell me something personal so I know I can trust you

I have an embarrassingly long list of purchased third party controllers because I keep dropping them down a flight of stairs. This is my worst secret and therefor I can not be blackmailed.

 

[Tim Kasto]

I have an embarrassingly long list of purchased third party controllers because I keep dropping them down a flight of stairs. This is my worst secret and therefor I can not be blackmailed.

Haha that's funny and sad

 

[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 announces that they have appointed three new NPA Generals, one of whom decides to post an oath. All three are also Deputy Speakers. Six weeks later, a citizen files an r4r regarding whether these NPA Generals qualify as government officials, and whether they are legally Deputy Speakers. What would be your opinion on the matter? What sources would you consult? 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?

 

[Just a Lore]

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 announces that they have appointed three new NPA Generals, one of whom decides to post an oath. All three are also Deputy Speakers. Six weeks later, a citizen files an r4r regarding whether these NPA Generals qualify as government officials, and whether they are legally Deputy Speakers. What would be your opinion on the matter? What sources would you consult? 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.

1.) Entertaining such an idea would be disqualifying of a justice.

2.) Honestly I stand by my long standing policy that I don't answer hypotheticals, doing such is dangerous and irresponsible. You are taking a surface level question and pre-deciding a possible case before the actual situation and all it's facts are placed in front of you. If a similar situation were to arise and I were to answer that question here that creates the appearance that I am not impartial to the question posed to the court because I have already declared how I will rule. Missing factors that I can see just off the top of my head before I could even consider ruling on this would include if that hypothetical person had discussions with other people regarding the nature of oaths of office, what if any applicable discussions between this person and the hypothetical delegate were made, how the NPA at the time of this even was being structured and its relation to the legally mandated office of Defense Minister.

3.) If I had any strong feelings on current TNP law I would drafting bills to change it. Either way it would be inappropriate for anyone with strong opinion on changing the law to join the court because that clouds your ability to read the laws as they are currently written and not how you want to see it written.

 

[Just a Lore]

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?

Honestly the trial worries me for other reasons then the shenanigans. I believe that the first judgement was wholey inappropriate because of what the defense attorney McM brought up at the time. The Court seemed to wholesale and entirey IGNORE the defense's argument and rational. The first judgement reads like a straight parroting of the prosecution, they only explained how the law backed up the arguments made by the prosecution and didn't even ATTEMPT to to relate the law to what the defense was saying or even seem to take into account anything they said. I can even see some spots where personal beliefs were brought in and not backed up by actual TNP law making it even more dubious.

If it wasn't for the 9003 incident causing the trial to go longer until they decided to actually even read the evidence Madjack might as well of had a wax statue as a lawyer cuz it seemed that the court just ignored them.

 

[Yalkan]

What you would realistically say is the longest you could work on a single case before you stopped caring?

 

[Just a Lore]

What you would realistically say is the longest you could work on a single case before you stopped caring?

Highly dependent on how entertaining it gets. We talking tele-novella levels I could go a whole year on the edge of my seat intently waiting on what next will pop up to read, consider, apply TNP law to and reread a dozen or so times.

 

[Cretox]

1.) Entertaining such an idea would be disqualifying of a justice.

2.) Honestly I stand by my long standing policy that I don't answer hypotheticals, doing such is dangerous and irresponsible. You are taking a surface level question and pre-deciding a possible case before the actual situation and all it's facts are placed in front of you. If a similar situation were to arise and I were to answer that question here that creates the appearance that I am not impartial to the question posed to the court because I have already declared how I will rule. Missing factors that I can see just off the top of my head before I could even consider ruling on this would include if that hypothetical person had discussions with other people regarding the nature of oaths of office, what if any applicable discussions between this person and the hypothetical delegate were made, how the NPA at the time of this even was being structured and its relation to the legally mandated office of Defense Minister.

3.) If I had any strong feelings on current TNP law I would drafting bills to change it. Either way it would be inappropriate for anyone with strong opinion on changing the law to join the court because that clouds your ability to read the laws as they are currently written and not how you want to see it written.