Kronos for Justice!

[Kronos]

Hey everyone, it's me again!

My first term as a Justice was an amazing experience. It was a surreal experience that I want to continue pursuing. Being a Justice has been the most fun I have had with NS law in recent memory. The amount of case law there is to read, and the amount I read during this term, only continued to fuel my excitement and love for the law.

I participated in three R4Rs this term, one of which I wrote. The first of those, On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board, concerned freedom of speech which as a subject is very sensitive and, as a first case to have as a Justice, is very daunting. Nevertheless it exhibits my capability to excel in the legal field and to professionally handle cases with sensitive legal topics like freedom of speech. The decision also overturned past precedents which I campaigned that I would support doing when it was needed. I embraced opportunity in being the Chief Justice and have enjoyed the extra responsibility that comes with it. I hope to continue as Chief and work on refining the Court Rulings archive that Ghost created. I believe I can categorize the cases since many of them share common themes with each other and my planned result is to have the rulings archive be more than a list.

Throughout the term I became more familiar with case precedent and I can confidently say I know more now than I did before. I enjoyed witnessing my own growth over time as I continued to expand my understanding of the legal history.

In my last campaign I shared that in my work I make sure the effects of the court's decisions do not reach outside the scope of the case. During the term I was able to apply this to the work I was doing and put it into practice.

I invested heavy research to the cases I participated in. Reading the law and analyzing the arguments being made were among my favorite parts. I deeply care for the work I put in and am eager and determined to put in some more. I still feel the excitement I felt for the position when I first ran it has been difficult to put this into words.

I am once again proud and honored to be running alongside experienced individuals. I wish everyone the best of luck and a fun race.

I am open to answering any questions you may have. Thank you for your time and consideration!

 

[Kaschovia]

What do you believe have been some of your greatest challenges serving in the role previously, and how did you manage to overcome them?

 

[Gorundu]

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?

 

[Kronos]

What do you believe have been some of your greatest challenges serving in the role previously, and how did you manage to overcome them?

Some of my greatest challenges so far have been my level of patience and overthinking what others think about my performance. For example Court Rules and Procedures Chapter 2.8 says the Court will endeavor to reach an opinion for an R4R within 14 days after the period for briefs close. Simply put it means that the 14 day period is not a requirement for the Court, but the Court will try very hard to reach a decision within that window. To me it still feels like a sort of deadline for opinions so as the Court discusses a case as the days wind down I start to get anxious and think "if we go over the 14 days what will people think?" and it eats me up a little. In NS I've mostly been in roles in other regions where someone tells me to do something and I go and do it then and there or as soon as I can then report back and get the next task and so on. That type of work ethic didn't really teach me patience. Why I love being in the legal field and why I love the Court is because the law doesn't just, change. It evolves, it takes time. So patience in the Court is still something I have to come to terms with sometimes but I've been overcoming it by reminding myself that now it's okay for me to take my time and think carefully about the case at hand. As for worrying about what others think that will always be a mini-anxiety I'll have. I like impressing people and being impressive. I like meeting expectations and then exceeding them. It's probably low-key perfectionism but I try not to look at it that way. The way I overcome that is remembering where my experience in the law has brought me and reminding myself that I am good at what I do and if I am able to please, then I am pleased.

 

[Kronos]

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?

I do not intend to seek selection as the Justice Bar Commissioner. I did not wholly agree with the Bar Act; I voted against it. The Bar Act was passed by the RA though and is now the letter of the law so as a Justice I have a duty to care for it which I will fulfill gladly. But if other Justices are interested in being selected for the position I will be leaving it to them.

 

[Kaschovia]

Some of my greatest challenges so far have been my level of patience and overthinking what others think about my performance. For example Court Rules and Procedures Chapter 2.8 says the Court will endeavor to reach an opinion for an R4R within 14 days after the period for briefs close. Simply put it means that the 14 day period is not a requirement for the Court, but the Court will try very hard to reach a decision within that window. To me it still feels like a sort of deadline for opinions so as the Court discusses a case as the days wind down I start to get anxious and think "if we go over the 14 days what will people think?" and it eats me up a little. In NS I've mostly been in roles in other regions where someone tells me to do something and I go and do it then and there or as soon as I can then report back and get the next task and so on. That type of work ethic didn't really teach me patience. Why I love being in the legal field and why I love the Court is because the law doesn't just, change. It evolves, it takes time. So patience in the Court is still something I have to come to terms with sometimes but I've been overcoming it by reminding myself that now it's okay for me to take my time and think carefully about the case at hand. As for worrying about what others think that will always be a mini-anxiety I'll have. I like impressing people and being impressive. I like meeting expectations and then exceeding them. It's probably low-key perfectionism but I try not to look at it that way. The way I overcome that is remembering where my experience in the law has brought me and reminding myself that I am good at what I do and if I am able to please, then I am pleased.

Thank you for your answer!

I agree that law requires patience from Justices as it evolves, and I empathise that not every Justice will agree with, and has to understand and uphold, the new laws passed by the RA. I believe that requires great adaptability and respect for our legislative process. But in this vein, I think your perfectionism can actually offer more strength than weakness. Upholding and understanding the law requires a level of scrutiny and diligence that is encouraged by perfectionist thinking and I always believe it is better to do your absolute best, even if you don't impress everyone.

Another question to pick your brains: of all the candidates also running for Justice, which of them do you believe is the next most qualified and experienced enough to be Justice, and why?

 

[Pallaith]

Kronos, I was super glad to have you run last time, and I am pleased you wish to continue your service on the Court. I think you've been a find addition and I appreciated your insight and participation while we served together. I do have some questions for you as we look to the term ahead.

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?

So far your experience on the Court hasn’t included handling criminal cases. This is something that a few of your opponents have done before. Do you have any notions of how you would approach criminal cases, or for the criminal case side of the judicial process more generally?

If this were possible, is there anything you would have told yourself back when you first ran for Justice to give you a better sense of what you were getting yourself into? In other words how has the previous term on the Court compared to/differed from your expectations when you first ran for the position? What will you be doing better next term that you needed time to figure out when you first got started?

 

[Kronos]

Thank you for your answer!

I agree that law requires patience from Justices as it evolves, and I empathise that not every Justice will agree with, and has to understand and uphold, the new laws passed by the RA. I believe that requires great adaptability and respect for our legislative process. But in this vein, I think your perfectionism can actually offer more strength than weakness. Upholding and understanding the law requires a level of scrutiny and diligence that is encouraged by perfectionist thinking and I always believe it is better to do your absolute best, even if you don't impress everyone.

Another question to pick your brains: of all the candidates also running for Justice, which of them do you believe is the next most qualified and experienced enough to be Justice, and why?

Hmm, that is a tricky one. Every candidate in the running has been on the Court before so they each have experience. From that perspective each candidate is qualified. Some of the candidates may have more time served on the Court than others, but whether or not that makes them more qualified is a matter of opinion. To fully answer the question requires thinking about which qualifications matter more than others and I don't think I have any in mind that stand out from the rest and I don't want to open the can of worms of which qualifications do/should/can matter more than others. All of the candidates are qualified by their own individual experiences and they have what it takes to serve.

 

[Kronos]

Kronos, I was super glad to have you run last time, and I am pleased you wish to continue your service on the Court. I think you've been a find addition and I appreciated your insight and participation while we served together. I do have some questions for you as we look to the term ahead.

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?

So far your experience on the Court hasn’t included handling criminal cases. This is something that a few of your opponents have done before. Do you have any notions of how you would approach criminal cases, or for the criminal case side of the judicial process more generally?

If this were possible, is there anything you would have told yourself back when you first ran for Justice to give you a better sense of what you were getting yourself into? In other words how has the previous term on the Court compared to/differed from your expectations when you first ran for the position? What will you be doing better next term that you needed time to figure out when you first got started?

Thank you for the kind remarks and the questions!

I feel universal standing is beneficial for the Court. I don't think universal standing needed to come back for R4Rs in a general sense. The R4Rs I participated in this term had enough to be accepted without it. But I do believe that universal standing is beneficial because those cases in which standing may not be present can still obtain the opportunity to be reviewed, so I am glad it has returned. Universal standing would change declinations of cases by the Court because, since the standing is universal, the Court is put in a position where it has to accept and review each one the Court Examiner brings unless there are technicalities present which could give the Court the opportunity to still deny hearing a case. I'll use the most recent declination of a case as an example. The most recent declination was issued by the Court because standing was not there. With a Court Examiner having universal standing the case would have been accepted because the standing comes with the Examiner by default. A similar example is the ruling On the Ability of the Speaker to Retract Citizenship. The Court ruled that the case was accepted because of the regional interest in the issue at the time with the Speaker's Office and its handling of citizenships, not because of the petitioner's standing. If there were a Court Examiner filing the case with universal standing, that opening paragraph of the ruling would be different. My hope with the return of universal standing is that it will act as a filter for the Court and enact diligence in the cases brought to them.

From my own perspective and the way I think I believed some of the cases I have seen this term felt a bit trivial. I'll use the Retract Citizenship ruling as an example again. I believed the question that was asked to the Court in that case was trivial because I believed the answer was already easy to see. I made as much aware during the motion to recall the Speaker that I was concerned the Speaker did not already know the answer to the questions raised because it seemed that simple. However, mistakes were made that only the Court could resolve so I understand that while the case felt trivial it was still important.

For criminal cases I would approach them according to the law and the Court Rules as I do for R4Rs. My mentality for both case types are similar: analyze the law, analyze the arguments, analyze the evidence, then deliberate and craft a conclusion.

Something I would tell my past self running for Justice would be along the lines of "you're going to have fun, you're going to become chief despite only just getting there, and you're going to have three R4Rs before your term ends. You will moderate two of them and draft your first R4R opinion for the third. You'll worry about saying the wrong thing but that's because you worry too much". By the time I first ran I had already heard that the Court can go through periods of being slow and not seeing much action so I was expecting this past term to be slower than what it was. The fact that it wasn't took me for a spin because my mind was racing with thoughts of "but they said it would be slow!" and "but this is exactly what I wanted!", haha. Something I will be doing better is finding things. This past term on the Court I've reviewed more case law than I think I ever have in my entire NS career. But still being new to the court side of the forum, I had no clue where I could find things. I still have a little trouble finding past cases but the reason for that now is because I don't know when those cases were ruled. Others who do have an easier time going through and finding what they need. Finding what I need to read has been coming along nicely though so in the next term I will be able to find what I need and find it faster.

 

[Kaschovia]

Hmm, that is a tricky one. Every candidate in the running has been on the Court before so they each have experience. From that perspective each candidate is qualified. Some of the candidates may have more time served on the Court than others, but whether or not that makes them more qualified is a matter of opinion. To fully answer the question requires thinking about which qualifications matter more than others and I don't think I have any in mind that stand out from the rest and I don't want to open the can of worms of which qualifications do/should/can matter more than others. All of the candidates are qualified by their own individual experiences and they have what it takes to serve.

Thanks 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?

 

[Kronos]

Thanks 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?

It depends on the circumstance from my perspective. The Bar Commission when it is formed will be tasked with measuring eligibility for Bar membership. In that specific case it will be on the Bar Commission to provide interested persons with the recommended or required qualifications and to also provide the resources necessary to meet those qualifications because they will ultimately be held responsible for the Bar's upkeep and for maintaining the standards they set. When it comes to the grander scheme of the law, like general practice, I believe if one takes an interest in the regional law then they should take it upon themselves to learn from the resources they can find. In my personal experience in NS law that is exactly what I did. I'm self-taught. I decided I wanted to learn about the law and took the initiative to pay attention. The Court is a reactive institution; it reacts to what appears before it. They solely interpret the law, review government actions, and pass judgement in the instances of a guilty verdict. But through doing so, the Court at the same time is teaching you what it thinks, how it thinks, and then presents it to you in the form of an opinion where you can then openly discuss them and learn from them. Previous rulings are case law and judicial precedent, but they are also primary resources for legal study because they were written by the Court itself. There is a vast quantity of information and resources available and accessible for those interested in general study. The first step in learning anything is taking the initiative to learn it so in my opinion and again based on my journey as a law guy, I believe if learning the law is something you really want to do then you should take it upon yourself to start learning it. It shows commitment and that you are open to challenging yourself to understand something new which looks good as you move forward in your legal career.

 

[Kaschovia]

It depends on the circumstance from my perspective. The Bar Commission when it is formed will be tasked with measuring eligibility for Bar membership. In that specific case it will be on the Bar Commission to provide interested persons with the recommended or required qualifications and to also provide the resources necessary to meet those qualifications because they will ultimately be held responsible for the Bar's upkeep and for maintaining the standards they set. When it comes to the grander scheme of the law, like general practice, I believe if one takes an interest in the regional law then they should take it upon themselves to learn from the resources they can find. In my personal experience in NS law that is exactly what I did. I'm self-taught. I decided I wanted to learn about the law and took the initiative to pay attention. The Court is a reactive institution; it reacts to what appears before it. They solely interpret the law, review government actions, and pass judgement in the instances of a guilty verdict. But through doing so, the Court at the same time is teaching you what it thinks, how it thinks, and then presents it to you in the form of an opinion where you can then openly discuss them and learn from them. Previous rulings are case law and judicial precedent, but they are also primary resources for legal study because they were written by the Court itself. There is a vast quantity of information and resources available and accessible for those interested in general study. The first step in learning anything is taking the initiative to learn it so in my opinion and again based on my journey as a law guy, I believe if learning the law is something you really want to do then you should take it upon yourself to start learning it. It shows commitment and that you are open to challenging yourself to understand something new which looks good as you move forward in your legal career.

Thank you for your timely and concise response, Kronos. I appreciate your comments.

Speaking of the Bar Commission, the recently passed Regional Bar and Standing Act requires 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?

 

[Simone]

I think you are well qualified. Best of luck

 

[Kronos]

Thank you for your timely and concise response, Kronos. I appreciate your comments.

Speaking of the Bar Commission, the recently passed Regional Bar and Standing Act requires 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?

When I think of “evaluation” as the law says I think of a test, like a Bar Exam. That’s a common method for testing legal knowledge. An exam can have questions based on the laws that must be covered per the Act and be made in a multiple choice, true or false, fill in the blank and/or short answers and essays. A passing grade could be set at 70-80%, higher or lower, it depends on the standard the Commission wishes to maintain. My main measure would be whether or not the test taker passed because that is the main factor I would be looking for.

An Exam is only the most common way to measure eligibility I have seen in my career it sounds a bit cliché but if the exam is made well and there is a sound grading system it can stand the test of time without much issue. Mock trials are another idea to test argumentative skills and how a person exhibits evidence and builds their arguments around said evidence. That takes some setup and to make sure it stays challenging you may have to have a different mock case per person. A person could be graded based on how well they argue around their evidence; the Commission can lay out the criteria for a passing score.

I’ve seen Bar eligibility handled differently in different places. One example is after a test the bar commission voted to let you in or not, which was weird but it didn’t receive much complaint. Another example didn’t use an exam at all, they simply let interested people apply and had them list their legal experience and if it met their standards they would let them in. If I were to be selected I would discuss the measures I listed here. Each one works but I would support the method that is most efficient and convenient both for the Commission and the applicants.

 

[Kronos]

I think you are well qualified. Best of luck

Thanks so much!