Dreadton for Justice

I have done many a platform for Justice, and not much has changed over time. You can see much of my work in the Case law file and as prosceutor on the Pigeonstan case. Going into this term, we will need to develop the new bar act, which is something I look forward too. Welcome any questions you may have.

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?

Could you explain to someone who is not as well-versed in the Court and regional law what the new bar act is? What is it about and what would it aim to achieve?

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...

1. Wouldnt Mind.

2. Ideally, you would have a person apply who has had some history arguing before the court. But that will keep us limited and defeat part of what this bill is about. Outside of that, I would go to something I discussed in previous campaigns and something that was implemented in TEP pretty effectively, a basic skills and knowledge test. Common opinion is that you need to know our laws pretty well to argue a case, but you only need to know the basics. The key to being effective and competent is the ability to research the law, the how and why that law is, and how its been uses and enforced in the past. The First Court Examiner will be the one setting the bar on this process. I would be looking for someone who has a history before the court and has the restraint on their use of their universal standing.

Kasch:

Could you explain to someone who is not as well-versed in the Court and regional law what the new bar act is? What is it about and what would it aim to achieve?

Click to expand...

TL;DR A few years ago we removed the Attorney General position from the government. With that removal, the only person with universal standing (Meaning can bring any question of law before the court, not just the ones they are personally affected by.) We also have struggled finding people willing and knowledgeable to act as legal counsel for people charged with a crime. To combat this, we have revamped how our case laws are presented and introduced this act to create a position with universal standing, along with establishing a process to verify a person would be capable and able to defend a citizen.

Dreadton:

TL;DR A few years ago we removed the Attorney General position from the government. With that removal, the only person with universal standing (Meaning can bring any question of law before the court, not just the ones they are personally affected by.) We also have struggled finding people willing and knowledgeable to act as legal counsel for people charged with a crime. To combat this, we have revamped how our case laws are presented and introduced this act to create a position with universal standing, along with establishing a process to verify a person would be capable and able to defend a citizen.

Click to expand...

Now I have had the chance to look in more depth at the new bar act, I will pose the same question here as I did to Lord Dominator, and will eventually ask of the other candidates.

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?

Dreadton, making another return to the Court. I just have a few questions.

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?

Do you feel you would have approached any of the cases that have taken place since you were last on the Court any differently than how they turned out?

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?

Pallaith:

Dreadton, making another return to the Court. I just have a few questions.

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?

Do you feel you would have approached any of the cases that have taken place since you were last on the Court any differently than how they turned out?

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...

!. Universal standing is needed to address key issues that would otherwise have to wait for a harm to happen. However, it is something that should be used sparingly. Without going through the logs on Discord, I think there would have been one or two more cases that the court would have had to address.

2. The ruling on the R4R I filed, I would have addressed differently. I think that Reasoning is overbroad. If the court wants intent to be taken into account when looking at laws, it should show a link between the debate on the law and how they interpret intent. Such as what I did with the Pigeonstan case.

3. I think that Fregs R4R was unnecessary. But overall if there is a legal question that is relevant it should be asked.

I think you are well qualified. Best of luck. We are spoiled for choice in this election with so many qualified candidates.