Sil Dorsett's Justice Run Q&A Thread

[Sil Dorsett]

Hey everyone! It's been a while since I held elected office, hasn't it? Deciding to run was a bit of an off-the-cuff decision, but I figured... I've served as a Temporary Hearing Officer three times, including twice during the whole nested R4R saga, so why not go for the full seat? I have some experience already. I've also been Vice Delegate twice, Election Commissioner since 2019 (including Chief Election Commissioner [Thanks Dreadton for keeping the seat warm for me]), Security Councilor since 2018, 4 times Minister of World Assembly Affairs, 1 time Minister of Foreign Affairs, and RP Moderator.

I admit that I don't have any spectacular platform on how to revolutionize the court, but being a Justice really isn't about that, in my opinion. It's about being there to listen to the facts, interpret the law, and deliver just and fair outcomes. I do aspire to be as concise and easily understandable as possible when writing decisions, but without omitting the facts and other important considerations. I'm also not afraid of the idea of writing concurring and dissenting opinions. So, feel free to ask me any questions to get my insights on how I would be as a Justice, and thanks for your consideration!

-Sil

 

[Tim Kasto]

Will you make your fellow justices as Sim characters when you win?

 

[Cretox]

Whaddo ya know looks like nominations have some effect after all

1. What's your favorite TNP court decision and why?
2. The delegate is sued for espionage and the VD appoints a prosecutor, who is then confirmed by the RA. Right after the case proper begins, new information comes to light that leads to the prosecutor getting credibly sued for conspiracy to commit the espionage. Can the prosecutor be removed for this without a recall? Should they? Should the law regarding this be changed?
3. The VD who appointed the prosecutor is sued for conspiracy to commit the espionage instead. Does that change the answer to the above, and if so, how?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Will you make your fellow justices as Sim characters when you win?

Yes. Depending on who wins, I may be adding a "Death by Pufferfish" trait to one of them, because it turns them into a ghost and adds a little pufferfish swimming around. It's hysterical!

Whaddo ya know looks like nominations have some effect after all

1. What's your favorite TNP court decision and why?
2. The delegate is sued for espionage and the VD appoints a prosecutor, who is then confirmed by the RA. Right after the case proper begins, new information comes to light that leads to the prosecutor getting credibly sued for conspiracy to commit the espionage. Can the prosecutor be removed for this without a recall? Should they? Should the law regarding this be changed?
3. The VD who appointed the prosecutor is sued for conspiracy to commit the espionage instead. Does that change the answer to the above, and if so, how?

1. I'm drawn towards On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party. Although the part of it that is most quoted limits who can bring cases forward, the part I like about it is at the end, where it also reminds us how remotely that standing can be established.

2. Clearly you see some gaps in the criminal trial procedure given this question and another question about the process that you asked Dreadton last year. Thought about submitting a bill to fix it?

Anyways... As the law stands now, I believe recall is the only available course of action. The appointer can't remove the prosecutor (LC 3.3.14). You (again) have a situation where there are technically two cases, so LC 3.3.16 isn't triggered. Although the prosecutor is a defendant to a related criminal act, they are not the defendant to the specific case of the delegate being accused. Also, there's due process to be afforded to the prosecutor. What if they were acquitted? But, even if they were convicted, espionage (and conspiracy to commit espionage) is not punishable by removal from office.

Should the law regarding this be changed? Well, there's two things that can be done, and I think they're worth considering.

1. First, the RA could add a line in which prosecutors "are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest," just like LC 3.2.5 and likely triggering an R4R when the prosecutor inevitably declines to recuse themselves . Right now, only Justices and Hearing Officers are affected by conflict of interest.
2. Secondly, the RA could change the penal code to make removal from office valid for espionage.

3. This is honestly another reason why we should bring back the Attorney General. It doesn't change the answer. They're still separate cases.

Common sense says the prosecutor should be removed, but, common sense does not always make the law, and we are bound by the law. Dreadton pointed out before that the intent of the RA was to make sure that this level of collusion can't happen. But, the wording of the law should reflect that, and right now I don't think it does.

 

[Cretox]

2. Clearly you see some gaps in the criminal trial procedure given this question and another question about the process that you asked Dreadton last year. Thought about submitting a bill to fix it?

Anyways... As the law stands now, I believe recall is the only available course of action. The appointer can't remove the prosecutor (LC 3.3.14). You (again) have a situation where there are technically two cases, so LC 3.3.16 isn't triggered. Although the prosecutor is a defendant to a related criminal act, they are not the defendant to the specific case of the delegate being accused. Also, there's due process to be afforded to the prosecutor. What if they were acquitted? But, even if they were convicted, espionage (and conspiracy to commit espionage) is not punishable by removal from office.

You know me too well. And what a clever way to show that you're familiar with prior candidates' platforms and decisions! Unfortunately, I don't remember half of what that part of law does at this point so I'm hesitant to write anything on it.

3. This is honestly another reason why we should bring back the Attorney General. It doesn't change the answer. They're still separate cases.

Do you intend to try to bring back the AG, and do you believe that any higher-level changes to the way the court, prosecutors, or the system in general operate should be made?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Do you intend to try to bring back the AG, and do you believe that any higher-level changes to the way the court, prosecutors, or the system in general operate should be made?

Well, if I wanted to do that, I could try it even without being a Justice. That's an RA thing. That being said, personally, I'd like to see it, because I think the current system of having confirmation hearings and votes every time one is needed is inefficient. I remember Election Commission confirmations that took three weeks. Plus, we ended up opening the door for frivolous criminal charges and gave up the universal standing mechanism. There are other bills out there, though, that try to resolve the issue without resorting to returning to an elected AG, and I'd like to see where those end up. I do seem to be in the minority over bringing the AG back. Again, though, not an issue for the court.

The only thing I can think of that could be improved is communication from the court regarding the progress of deliberations. Obviously, previews of decisions would be inappropriate, but even little quick notifications that "Hey, we're still looking at this" would go a long way. Nobody should have to remind the court that there is a case pending a decision. Granted, it's easy to say that when you're on the outside trying to look in, and there are rules regarding timeliness in the court procedures. My thought is that if you're going to breach that timeliness expectation, you should explain why if you can, but at minimum just note that you haven't forgotten.

 

[Pallaith]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the matter of the AG being needed, but I think there's room for further improvements to the prosecution system. You are right that that is unrelated to our work as justices though. I'm sure things will develop on that front down the road in any case.

I found your responses and your pitch quite compelling. I'm surprised you've never attempted this before. I think you'd do well in this role. Good luck.