Lord Dominator for Justice

Lord Dominator

Lord Dominator

Election Commissioner
-
-
-
I am once again asking for your vote in this upcoming Judicial Election.

As before, my past experience and qualifications are exceptional - multiple trials moderated, activity as both prosecution and defense, filing briefs & debating R4Rs in general. I’ve already been elected multiple times (including the short term from the recent special election).

In any case then, any question?
 
Would you intend to seek selection as the Bar Commissioner chosen from the Justices?

If so: what do you think would be an appropriate way for the Bar Commission to establish the acceptability and competence of counsel; what provision would you make for managing the membership of the bar, such as around the removal of counsel, beyond the prohibition on those subject to criminal sentence; and, how do you think you will go about choosing a Court Examiner?
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
Would you intend to seek selection as the Bar Commissioner chosen from the Justices?

If so: what do you think would be an appropriate way for the Bar Commission to establish the acceptability and competence of counsel; what provision would you make for managing the membership of the bar, such as around the removal of counsel, beyond the prohibition on those subject to criminal sentence; and, how do you think you will go about choosing a Court Examiner?
Click to expand...
I am not minded to specifically seek out the position, but I have no objection to serving in it if elected.

Establishment of competence and such I suspect would wind up being best done by looking at past history (for those with experience) in the courts and the “answer a random hypothetical format” in general. Some degree of semi-standardized (ie, random questions, but from a curated group) test would also be in order, to prove basic legal competence and knowledge of the law. Or at least the ability to research effectively, which is also good.

In regards to membership management, I suspect such efforts would be principally focused on automatic loss (ie, loss of citizenship), gross incompetence, and effort in order to ensure members of the bar are appropriately sorted in order to also server non-prosecutorial roles (ie, those willing to serve as THOs or defense counsel).

As to a Court Examiner, I do not yet know how I would go about choosing one, a there is not presently a bar to choose from.
 
What do you believe is your largest area of weakness in the role of Justice and why? Candidates, understandably, will present their strengths first and foremost, but I do believe it is also a valuable quality to identify and address weaknesses as well.
 
Kasch:
What do you believe is your largest area of weakness in the role of Justice and why? Candidates, understandably, will present their strengths first and foremost, but I do believe it is also a valuable quality to identify and address weaknesses as well.
Click to expand...
I tend to approach this (NS as a whole) as a game above all else (or at least try to) and at times that manifests in my interest being more in the novelty of legal theories or circumstances than pure practicality. For instance, my long-standing gripe in the trial of (I believe) Artemizistan regarding the lack of opportunity to explore the legal nuances of the Delegate’s ability to except certain people from treason/espionage/proxying punishments for certain reasons.

edit: less seriously, probably my possible overuse of parentheses.
 
Last edited:
Lord Dominator:
I tend to approach this (NS as a whole) as a game above all else (or at least try to) and at times that manifests in my interest being more in the novelty of legal theories or circumstances than pure practicality. For instance, my long-standing gripe in the trial of (I believe) Artemizistan regarding the lack of opportunity to explore the legal nuances of the Delegate’s ability to except certain people from treason/espionage/proxying punishments for certain reasons.

edit: less seriously, probably my possible overuse of parentheses.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answer!

Now I'd like to ask more about the future of the Court and the accessibility of information and resources. For many people, approaching and learning about the laws of the region can be a daunting and treacherous endeavour given the breadth of legal documents and content available to everyday citizens, especially when there are experienced ex-Justices and those generally well-informed and interested in law who will be confident enough to contribute to discussions and push changes through into law. From that, do you believe it should be the responsibility of the Court to consider more proactive approaches to the education of the citizenry on regional law and the processes of justice, especially as the new bar act comes into effect and citizens from a wider pool of potential representatives will need to prove sufficient legal knowledge to represent those charged with crimes, or should those interested enough in law take it upon themselves to learn from the resources currently available and by reading through previous cases and rulings to meet the requirements of the bar? In essence, do you believe the Court should be proactive in educating the citizenry about regional law in response to changes in legal representation?
 
LD, I just have to start by saying again how impressed I am you pulled off that win against Zyvet. He's a titan of the Court and I really did think he would have been here instead of you. So props for that.

How do you feel about universal standing? We have it back now with the new law, in the hands of the court examiner. Do you think we needed universal standing to come back for r4rs? Would that have changed any of the previous declinations we’ve seen since the AGORA Act passed? Or would those still not have happened?

Have we trivialized r4rs with some of the recent ones, or are those examples of the kind of questions we should be asking more often?

You have served on the Court and joined in opinions on more r4rs than any other candidate in the running against you, yet you have never drafted an opinion. Why is that?

How have you better prepared for this particular rematch against Lore? What's your win/loss ratio currently?
 
Kasch:
In essence, do you believe the Court should be proactive in educating the citizenry about regional law in response to changes in legal representation?
Click to expand...
Yes and no - the ultimate responsibility for legal education falls on the individual, and there’s only so much we can do to facilitate that (especially beyond citizen pings when things happen). I do think it’ll be worthwhile in the future to try and create a topical version of the rulings index howeve.
Pallaith:
LD, I just have to start by saying again how impressed I am you pulled off that win against Zyvet. He's a titan of the Court and I really did think he would have been here instead of you. So props for that.
Click to expand...
Thank you
Pallaith:
How do you feel about universal standing? We have it back now with the new law, in the hands of the court examiner. Do you think we needed universal standing to come back for r4rs? Would that have changed any of the previous declinations we’ve seen since the AGORA Act passed? Or would those still not have happened?
Click to expand...
I like universal standing, at least when tied to a specific person - it should obviates the need for there to be a drawn-out discussion among the Justices on standing for cases much of the time. I do think it needed to come back, simply because the “compelling regional interest“ justification for standing, while a decent metric is ultimately pretty non-specific and debatable. It should be good to have someone empowered to just submit R4Rs on their own authority.
Pallaith:
Have we trivialized r4rs with some of the recent ones, or are those examples of the kind of questions we should be asking more often?
Click to expand...
In general, I don’t think so - I’m largely in favor of more R4Rs on whatever the topic, both in terms of giving the Court something to do & as a way to resolve problems that otherwise can’t permanently be.
Pallaith:
You have served on the Court and joined in opinions on more r4rs than any other candidate in the running against you, yet you have never drafted an opinion. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Largely because I write slow/not at all (witness how often I spit out a WA draft) and generally those who have been writing them do good writing.
Pallaith:
How have you better prepared for this particular rematch against Lore? What's your win/loss ratio currently?
Click to expand...
Not a clue on win-loss, so I bought some poisons on the chance I lose to them again ;)
 
Lord Dominator:
Yes and no - the ultimate responsibility for legal education falls on the individual, and there’s only so much we can do to facilitate that (especially beyond citizen pings when things happen). I do think it’ll be worthwhile in the future to try and create a topical version of the rulings index howeve.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answer. I like the idea of creating a topical version of the rulings index.

In addition to this, the recently passed Regional Bar and Standing Act require the Bar Commission to evaluate the acceptability and legal knowledge of applicants and establish a standard procedure for doing so. Because two of the Bar Commissioners are to be selected from and by the Justices, one appointed and confirmed by the RA, the Court will have a say in what that standard procedure will be, and how they will measure the acceptability and legal knowledge of applicants. So, what do you believe such a standard procedure would look like, and how would you measure, more specifically, the acceptability and legal knowledge of applicants, should you be one of the Justices next term?
 
Kasch:
Thank you for your answer. I like the idea of creating a topical version of the rulings index.

In addition to this, the recently passed Regional Bar and Standing Act require the Bar Commission to evaluate the acceptability and legal knowledge of applicants and establish a standard procedure for doing so. Because two of the Bar Commissioners are to be selected from and by the Justices, one appointed and confirmed by the RA, the Court will have a say in what that standard procedure will be, and how they will measure the acceptability and legal knowledge of applicants. So, what do you believe such a standard procedure would look like, and how would you measure, more specifically, the acceptability and legal knowledge of applicants, should you be one of the Justices next term?
Click to expand...
I do believe my present thoughts have been largely elaborated in one of my responses to Zyvet - though if there’s something outside of those, I’d be happy to answer further questionsl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top