Pallaith for Justice: Technically This is the Second Time

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
Hello, me again. After some consideration, and a little encouragement (thanks guys, you know who you are), I have decided to put myself forward for another term as justice. Even a few days ago it's safe to say this isn't something I was set on doing, but I figured, why not? There's a few decent reasons, the most obvious being, I haven't really had a chance to do anything yet. I spent a term looking for ways to tweak the court and how we do business to try to rectify a litany of concerns I had that I have outlined previously. Well, being on the Court was an eye-opening experience, because I found there was no Easy button to make these problems go away. My biggest conclusion was that if this is the model of Court we prefer, then the big factor in whether it has a good term or bad, and whether cases are handled properly or botched, is the people we choose to sit on the Court.

I did not hear any cases last term. No justice did. I find myself the Chief Justice by virtue of stepping in when the last Chief vacated office. I was involved in a court procedure change designed to make it harder for moderating justices to screw up in the same way we saw when MadJack's guilty verdict was reversed a day later. That is, we explicitly allow justices to extend court time to ensure that litigants actually perform the necessary steps not to lose a case on a technicality. I would have done more with the procedure if I thought it would make a difference, but so much of this comes down to how knowledgeable, careful, and deliberate the various actors in our court dramas can be. If we want to work on that, we have options, some of which I outlined in my RA speech on the Court. But that won't be done from inside the Court, unfortunately.

I ran for justice the first time outlining my thoughts on the judicial system in TNP and how I would like to work on it from within. Obviously I was not able to provide dramatic results, but I did endeavor to continue the conversation and tell you what I learned (as evident by my RA thread). I also shared what my approach would be to hearing cases, and that's probably the most relevant for this time around, because unless we have another quiet term, I will probably get some opportunity to do some justicing.

I think it's silly to have to promise I will be around, follow my oath and maintain office. I get why other candidates do that, and sometimes even I think it's kind of funny, but anyone elected in this region is essentially implying these things when they step up, otherwise why would you vote for them in the first place? Instead I ask that you consider my judicial philosophy, best summed up in these quotes from my previous campaign:

One thing that I hope never happens again, and that I would consider it my duty to avoid, is for advocates to lose a case on a technicality that anyone paying proper attention in the trial would have been able to observe. If we want justice to actually be served, then we should be concerned with the facts of the case and the arguments, not whether all the prerequisite court-cosplay was done correctly. If I see basic procedure is not being followed, I will insist that it is so that such things don’t undermine and render the entire process pointless by dominating the conclusion of the trial.

We need a justice system that is less concerned with all of that pomp and circumstance, and that remembers this is not just a virtual court in a political simulation game, but also the only avenue for adjudicating disputes related to our region’s politics and rules, and the only way to properly resolve them. That’s my judicial philosophy, and I hope to extend it to how I would write opinions, that is, relatively straightforward, with as little artifice as possible. I hope that when I write an opinion, it will be obvious and clear what the result is and why, preferably within a few lines of reading it.

Some of you feared that if given the opportunity, I would seek to completely transform the Court and change how it was made and chosen, likely by making it subject to Delegate appointment. Setting aside the fact a justice has no ability to do such things through fiat, I can confidently say that after serving on the Court, I am convinced that the same problem will exist no matter how justices are selected. The RA will need to decide if it wants to change standards for the Court, and its justices and prosecutors. If all they do is change how the sausage is made without trying to improve the ingredients, then we're not going to get very far. Since it comes down to whether a person can competently serve in this role or not, I put myself forward as a known quantity, someone who puts in good work and sticks with the commitments he makes. You know I can write a court opinion, even if you've never thought about me doing it, or seen me do it elsewhere (though I have). And thanks to this campaign, you even know what kind of opinion I would write, and what would motivate me as someone presiding over a case.

Earlier I said that there's a few decent reasons why I should commit to another run. What I said in the previous paragraph is one of them: there's a lot of options in this election, way more than the one that swept me in here. I want people to have clear, distinct choices, and because I believe this philosophy is what the Court needs, I want to make sure that the region has a chance to advance it by keeping me on the Court. Because that's another reason right there: I am already here, I know more than I did a term ago about what it's like in the Court, and trying to keep the Court and how it may be improved near the top of issues for TNPers to have on their mind has been a big part of my involvement in the region as of late. I feel it would be a shame for me to shrug and say something along the lines of "forget it TNP, it's Chinatown" and leave it at that. To the extent that me being in the race keeps these points of concern on the region's radar, and that I and other candidates may have to think about them and discuss them, I want to be in this race.

Finally, as I said in my last campaign: this is a game. We like having elections because it's fun. What can be more fun than what feels like arena combat with a dozen candidates? I can't resist jumping into that. And with other current and former justices also in the running, I'm in good company. Let's really make this as challenging for us candidates, and for you the voter, as we can, because why not? This thread is open for your questions, comments, and feedback, whether it be snarky, sincerely funny, or try hard.
 
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?
 
More candidates have stood for office then I can remember in recent memory. Do you see this as a positive change for the Judiciary? Or do you think it's more of a one off event inspired by the recent discussion thread?

Happy to see you run. Even though you weren't able to hear a case last term, you still asked a lot of important questions.
 
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?

Ha ha, how amusing...though I think you might be able to assume how I feel about this given how I phrased the questions. I ran for justice in the first place because of that case. It was mishandled literally on very level. The moderating justice didn't take care to make sure the litigants followed proper procedure, and the prosecution made a rookie mistake. Ultimately, the case was resolved the only way it could be, as much as it sucks to fall to a procedural error. We still lean on a court system that wants to pretend to be a real life criminal court that allows technicalities to subvert simple and clean outcomes. It's not as if we all didn't know MadJack was the Speaker, there was no mystery there. But I am not sure how you simplify procedure to a point where we can rely on common sense without calling into question a lot of the evidence procedure and logic underpinning our judicial law. The Court would have to change quite dramatically for us to be in a place where we don't need to jump through procedural hoops that amount to establishing the very basic reality that defines the parameters of a case. The easiest part arguably was submitting that oath, and yet...

As the author of the aforementioned court procedure change, of course I have reviewed it...but I do not believe it alone is enough to avoid this type of problem in the future. What it is designed to do is make clear in our procedures that this is something justices should look out for, and a reminder to them that they can manage the trial in such a way that basic steps like that are followed. The justices, in my view, have always been able to do that, but they may not have considered it or, out of an abundance of caution, decided against handling the trial that way. With it outlined in the procedures, they know they have this tool and they should feel more free to use it. But because it is an option, there may be justices who elect not to do so, or they may erroneously believe that they haven't missed anything. Error on the part of the justice and litigants will always be a possibility, no court procedure change can eliminate it entirely. We just have to establish greater discipline and care with the people engaging in the legal system. Proposals to have a bar system or qualifications to hold these offices are one way we can work on that without dramatically altering how we set up our judiciary.

After that case, I was fed up with how the Court operates. I wanted to peek inside and see if I could make it work better. I concluded my options to do so are very limited, and I have laid this case out to the RA. It is up to all of us to decide what we want out of this judiciary. We have to address these problems with new legislation though, whether we go for emphasizing a higher standard of actor or wholesale root and branch reconstruction of the Court. One thing I have never addressed, but is theoretically possible, is a far more dramatic approach to court procedure amendments, where the Court just decides to forget the current process and invent a new one, ostensibly one that is simpler and harder to lend itself to loopholes and lawyer tricks. However, that could potentially make the Court look very very different, and depending on just how dramatic a change it is, could be very distasteful to the region. I have criticized the "legal RP" that our Court engages in, and perhaps there is a simpler process that doesn't take things as seriously as a real life court. I have no idea what that looks like, though, nor am I unaware of the unintended consequences that exist for making it too easy to complete a case and take people down without much effort. And I should note that where the recent MadJack case fell apart, there is nothing in the current procedures that directly addresses it - it was simply understood that in terms of considering evidence, an obvious and fundamental piece of evidence only existed outside the framework of the case. Unless a rewritten court procedure said we could simply use facts outside a case (wow what a wild idea and terrifying idea), I don't see how that pitfall is avoided. Given we would be stepping into the unknown, at the very least the justices would need to have a conversation with the RA about what a totally new structure looks like. Without them being on board, a Court that decrees a completely new way of handling cases would be, rightfully so, highly likely to inspire backlash.

So I would like to see some sort of change, but I believe it is best done by the RA, with them deciding how they want the judiciary to look, nd personally feel the easiest and most realistic way to keep what we have now but improve it is to focus on qualifications and building knowledge on the part of whoever gets involved in the judicial branch. I have also come to accept that if nothing changes, that just underscores the need to put careful, deliberate people on the Court. Choose even more carefully especially on the off chance you get a thorny case, but also try to make sure they can handle the more basic stuff. When it comes to elections, sometimes you're just relying on luck and random chance.

lot of text, I support

I've seen worse, including from myself. But thanks I guess.

More candidates have stood for office then I can remember in recent memory. Do you see this as a positive change for the Judiciary? Or do you think it's more of a one off event inspired by the recent discussion thread?

Happy to see you run. Even though you weren't able to hear a case last term, you still asked a lot of important questions.

No. It's not that it's a negative change for the judiciary either, it's just irrelevant. I'm more interested in the types of candidates we have than the quantity. If you had only say 5 candidates who were all of robust and high quality, that would be better than 20 who are mostly memers and jokers. And no matter how many you have, in the end only 3 will sit on the court, and whether those 3 are good at their jobs and able to handle the cases and situations that develop over the term is what determines if the judiciary has a positive outcome or not. When it comes to this election, I would say the number of candidates is a result of two things in order of significance: the VD's push to make the region more aware of the election, and the fact there's only two incumbent justices and a few former ones who want to step back up.

Happy to see you're happy to see me run, and that you appreciate what I have been doing as it relates to the judicial branch.
 
Last edited:
If you were placed into the position where you needed to make a ruling on the MJ case but you were unable to correct the issues that came up with the moderating justice not taking care to ensure the litigants followed proper procedure, how would you rule?
 
If you were placed into the position where you needed to make a ruling on the MJ case but you were unable to correct the issues that came up with the moderating justice not taking care to ensure the litigants followed proper procedure, how would you rule?
My ruling would have been the same, in case that was somehow not clear from my earlier post. There's no getting around that a very basic and default piece of evidence, that took really no effort to find or put on record, and could not have possibly been challenged, was lacking from the case. Like I said, we all know MadJack was Speaker, but to rely on that knowledge without submitting the oath would mean pulling in facts outside the trial, and taken to an extreme, that would be a very bad practice. It definitely would be one of those hold your nose and do it rulings, because your hands are basically tied at that point.
 
Thanks for the clarification. In that position, I think it would be the right thing to do indeed.
 
Why so many words? Experts argue a campaign platform for Justice is nonsensical.
 
Back
Top