Pallaith for Justice: When One Year Just Isn't Enough for Some Reason

[Pallaith]

Hello, it's me again. Three-time justice, two-and-a-quarter time Chief Justice, coming back for more. I am pursuing this office again after a fairly lengthy period of time where there was very little for the Court to do. Honestly, I think we should appreciate those periods, because it usually means nothing bad is happening. I understand it's nice to have a little spice, but no news is good news in this area. Should there be something that does go wrong legally, and we justices have to step in, I hope by now you can count on me having been around to know how it works and what to do. Based on how this election is shaping up so far, it looks like if I make the cut when voting ends, I will be the only returning justice, and by far am the most experienced in the field as it currently stands. Last time I ran I asked that you pick me if you wanted some experience on the Court. Doing this job for over a year is admittedly a long time, and there's certainly a reason past justices chose not to continue pursuing a spot on the Court for that long. I have seen the makeup of this Court shift every time we have had election that I have been a part of, and this could be a great time for newcomers given the other incumbents are taking a step back this term. I would be happy to serve as the bridge connecting the upcoming Court to the past ones and making sure the newcomers have extra guidance. I am confident they could find they way without me, but I figure it can't hurt.

We've come a long way from how things were when I was inspired to take on this role a year ago. The flurry of cases and frustrating results we had seen were not repeated, and at least I personally learned that we weren't missing any obvious fixes that had to be applied - the system works as intended, for better or worse. I also learned that people ultimately didn't really want to make a big change to our justice system. While tweaks and improvements are always welcome and are always in the works to some degree, changing how we choose our justices, and how they operate, in a significant way just isn't something TNP has an appetite for. I respect and understand that, and I accept it. It's not what I expected when I first got involved on the Court, but sometimes you have to learn by giving it a try. That doesn't mean I have stopped that reform mindset - I continue to look for ways to make it better. I've been mulling over a way for legally interested players to get involved without starting by running for Justice. Some sort of clerk system has been talked about and proposed in a few forms, none of which made any progress or were handled well. I will not promise that I will find the solution, but I am interested in working on something to that effect, and would welcome your input and ideas for it. I will continue to try to find a way for the Court to be relevant between cases, to help preserve knowledge and sharpen skills that often aren't without someone getting prosecuted. I hope that we can find a solution to the standing problem that some people feel is really hampering the possibility of r4rs.

I feel the Court needs someone there who can guide it and keep the institutional knowledge in place. I don't think it needs me specifically to do that and certainly not forever. I humbly put myself forward for that. If you would like me to continue to lend my expertise to the Court, give me your vote. With that, questions and comments are always welcome.

 

[Tim Kasto]

Do you think we should have a tdlr at the bottom of the legal code?

 

[Dreadton]

Which court ruling should be overturned partially or completely, and why?

 

[Cretox]

Full support.

1. Do you believe that deputy ministers should be codified as government officials?
2. The Delegate is accused of Gross Misconduct and the Vice Delegate is accused of Conspiracy to commit the GM. Would the Delegate still be able to appoint the prosecutor for the latter case and the VD for the former, and do you believe that should be changed?
3. What level of entanglement do you believe to be sufficient for a conflict of interest? Let's say you're a deputy minister and the delegate gets sued. Is that a conflict of interest? What if you're a staffer? An advisor?

 

[Pallaith]

Yay questions.

Do you think we should have a tdlr at the bottom of the legal code?

No.

Which court ruling should be overturned partially or completely, and why?

This is actually a two part answer and I only have time to give you part one currently. There’s a reason that judges like to avoid hypothetical questions and not speak off the cuff about legal questions ahead of situations where they may need to hear them. It’s safest then to avoid answering the question. However, this is a political game and these aren’t real life stakes. I’m an opinionated person and I share those opinions. It probably speaks volumes that off the top of my head I can’t think of any rulings I feel should be overturned, though I don’t discount that possibility. The closest thing is probably one of those cases I have complained about in the past, like MadJack’s successful defense when he was Speaker. However, that one wouldn’t actually count because technically speaking, the right decision was made even if it was distasteful. Legal niceties and people screwing up account for most of the bad outcomes we have observed over the years. Your question then demands I engage with settled case law that I feel ought to be unsettled, an interesting question that I will explore and if I find anything to report, I will update this post.

EDIT: I have gone through the old decisions, I think they still hold up. I may quibble with bits and pieces but I feel they get to the right result. I would have appreciated a crack at the last two decisions written by Lore, but that’s a style issue less than a legal issue.

Full support.

1. Do you believe that deputy ministers should be codified as government officials?
2. The Delegate is accused of Gross Misconduct and the Vice Delegate is accused of Conspiracy to commit the GM. Would the Delegate still be able to appoint the prosecutor for the latter case and the VD for the former, and do you believe that should be changed?
3. What level of entanglement do you believe to be sufficient for a conflict of interest? Let's say you're a deputy minister and the delegate gets sued. Is that a conflict of interest? What if you're a staffer? An advisor?

Alright so these are interesting.

1)I don’t think deputy ministers should be codified as government officials. Doing that would require us to move a lot of stuff around because otherwise we would severely limit our talent pool due to rules about serving in multiple branches. I think our current setup is clever and serves us well. I also believe that what deputies are varies a lot depending on the ministry - in some ministries they are essential and crucial roles of trust and authority, in others they are slightly advanced staff. And if them being government officials created a difficulty ministers could arrange for some layer underneath them that may in time prove to be indistinguishable from the old deputies - maybe we even end up with this new thing and almost no deputy ministers. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

2)I see those cases as related. Therefore, our law does include a provision that would prevent the Vice Delegate from being the next person in the LoS to appoint prosecutors, as the VD is part of the defense. The third in line would appoint both, assuming we end up doing two separate trials, though I honestly don’t think we need to do that since your question made it clear it was the same gross misconduct.

3)It doesn’t matter how high or low you are on the totem pole, if you play a significant or central role in the events at the heart of a criminal case, you have a conflict of interest. Simply being on executive staff or simply being a deputy is not sufficient to rise to the level of conflict of interest simply because the delegate was sued. But being low level is not in itself a disqualifier from having a conflict of interest if you were right there next to the delegate involved in whatever it is that got them sued.

 

[Cretox]

Thank you for the answers. I try to keep questions interesting

I don’t think deputy ministers should be codified as government officials. Doing that would require us to move a lot of stuff around because otherwise we would severely limit our talent pool due to rules about serving in multiple branches. I think our current setup is clever and serves us well. I also believe that what deputies are varies a lot depending on the ministry - in some ministries they are essential and crucial roles of trust and authority, in others they are slightly advanced staff. And if them being government officials created a difficulty ministers could arrange for some layer underneath them that may in time prove to be indistinguishable from the old deputies - maybe we even end up with this new thing and almost no deputy ministers. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Do you believe that's detrimental to accountability in any way? Technically, a delegate under the current law could have their chief of staff appoint their minister of culture, though I suppose then liability for wrongdoing would simply be transferred to the chief of staff.

Two more questions:

1. Do you think there's a such thing as a victimless crime? Under what circumstances, if any, would you push for a bare minimum penalty for a guilty defendant?
2. Do you believe that newer members of the region have been underrepresented on the bench? These elections tend to be dominated by the same few experienced candidates with leagues of experience behind them; should more importance be placed on electing at least some newer justices, and if so, how can newer candidates demonstrate affinity for the position?

 

[Pallaith]

Thank you for the answers. I try to keep questions interesting

Do you believe that's detrimental to accountability in any way? Technically, a delegate under the current law could have their chief of staff appoint their minister of culture, though I suppose then liability for wrongdoing would simply be transferred to the chief of staff.

Two more questions:

1. Do you think there's a such thing as a victimless crime? Under what circumstances, if any, would you push for a bare minimum penalty for a guilty defendant?
2. Do you believe that newer members of the region have been underrepresented on the bench? These elections tend to be dominated by the same few experienced candidates with leagues of experience behind them; should more importance be placed on electing at least some newer justices, and if so, how can newer candidates demonstrate affinity for the position?

Firstly, @Dreadton I have updated my answer to your question. It’s not very exciting, I’m sorry.

Cretox, I do not feel that is an accountability issue. Simply put, it’s the delegate’s government. If the government is mismanaged, the buck ultimately stops with the delegate. Specific government officials should be held accountable for any wrongdoing they commit. I don’t think people would accept the Chief of Staff appointing ministers, that would be highly unusual, and if some sort of sleight of hand were attempted in doing that, the delegate would not be able to escape accountability - we have various methods up to end including recall if it’s severe enough. Our tradition and our norms are just as binding when it comes to accepting what the government does. As far as legal technicalities, I guess the scenario you outlined could be done, but I personally don’t feel that accountability is strictly limited to these legal definitions.

As to your new questions:

1)As a general rule, I never say never. I probably would find some scenario that is essentially a victimless crime. The important thing to note though is that in hearing a criminal case, the facts don’t care if it’s a “victimless” crime, they care if someone broke the rules. If the law says the rules were broken and we do have minimum sentencing guidelines, then I would feel compelled to specify the minimum sentencing in a censrio where I feel the crime was minuscule in nature. I’m not here to impress people with tough on crime schtick, I promised to be simple, straightforward, to the point. That would include sentencing. If it’s not a big deal and we’re going through the motions, the sentencing will reflect that.

2)There’s a lot of similarity in nature in the election for justices that we used to see in the election for the AG. That is, often few people want to run so you end up with two types of candidates predominantly: experienced people who are serious about legal stuff (and they are inevitably fewer in number and you tend to see more of them for longer when you get them around), or inexperienced neophytes underestimating the job. And because the justices often do nothing, it seems safe for the neophytes to give it a try. As with the AG, we have seen that there can be consequences if someone unprepared is on the Court. And yet, it’s clearly different too. We had a worse track record with the AG’s office in its final years than the missteps with the Court, but I won’t pretend we didn’t have that nested r4r fiasco.

I don’t necessarily feel that fresh blood has to be represented in a certain ratio on the Court. Old blood can be bad at Court business too. I’m interested in capable and dedicated citizens stepping up and giving this a try because we can’t rely on the same handful of people rotating in and out of this job forever. There’s renewal every term even if it comes in the form of an old face returning after some time away or an old face who never sat on the Court before. But we’ve managed to bring on new talent, some of which proved to be good for the role. And it doesn’t take much - we have seen total unknowns try for the job and impress people and win over big names. They just have to do their homework, prove they actually care about the role they are asking for, and give us the respect of taking our questions and the election seriously while we take their candidacy seriously. After that, every voter simply decides what their preferred balance of experience to newcomer is and cast their votes accordingly.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Do you feel that your role as a Government Advisor may prove to be a problem for you, when inevitably someone gets put on trial for something, presumably during the upcoming election?

 

[Pallaith]

Do you feel that your role as a Government Advisor may prove to be a problem for you, when inevitably someone gets put on trial for something, presumably during the upcoming election?

I have a lot less faith in the inevitability of an election-related court case than some people out there seem to have, but I would say it would depend on the case. As I indicated in a previous answer, if someone is involved in the matter before the Court, that speaks to their conflict. Simply being the delegate’s advisor doesn’t necessarily mean I am conflicted out of hearing a criminal case involving something that the delegate did. I would note however that even if I were not involved in whatever was being brought to the Court, it’s not hard to imagine some form of bias. Fortunately we have other justices who can hear the case instead of me. But we should take care not to dwell unnecessarily on every single potential form of conflict - if we are too broad with that, we would have trouble electing anyone to the Court who has been or is currently part of the government, knows or is friends with the other players, or even is known to have opinions about the things that may come up.

This Court had one r4r on my watch. I recused myself from it because it related to a law I wrote. If the delegate found himself in Court because of any action that he personally took, or one of the members of his government took either at his urging or in accordance with some goal or implementation of policy, even if not explicitly directed by him, I would recuse myself. When it comes to this stuff, even the appearance of bias should be taken seriously. As an advisor I have a seat at the delegate’s table and it is fair to say we share goals and I do my part to help him accomplish his goals and execute his vision. No doubt that would color how I might like to see cases turn out no matter how clearly I try to separate my roles. The more removed I am from whatever it is that comes before the Court, the less of a problem that will be. But it’s more likely than not I’ll conclude recusal is appropriate.