- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Attempted_Socialism
- Discord
- Kim Philby#9330
During the last election I said that I was not the likeliest of candidates. I did not expect to get elected back then, as a complete newcomer. My expectation was to put my name out there and have a good showing in preparation for running the next time -- this time. Instead I got elected, and the first case before the Court was about treaties and sanctions, which turned out to be something of a trial by fire.
Pallaith and others have been very critical of that decision, and I do understand why it was contentious. I won't betray the confidentiality of the Court Chambers, so my reflections on the decision here will be limited to acknowledging that the decision was heavily debated by the Justices and Temporary Hearing Officer involved too, as is also made obvious by the length of time it took (And length of the ruling). For the truly interested, I can only suggest reading the internal deliberations once the thread is declassified.
The other case came alongside Dreadton's resignation. As it turns out, I have some expanded thoughts on that, which I will offer here for the voters to showcase how I approach legal analysis, and as a public statement endorsing legislation by the Regional Assembly.
As a last comment on my last run, I made this self-deprecating declaration:
I am open to answering questions pertaining to my candidacy.
Pallaith and others have been very critical of that decision, and I do understand why it was contentious. I won't betray the confidentiality of the Court Chambers, so my reflections on the decision here will be limited to acknowledging that the decision was heavily debated by the Justices and Temporary Hearing Officer involved too, as is also made obvious by the length of time it took (And length of the ruling). For the truly interested, I can only suggest reading the internal deliberations once the thread is declassified.
The other case came alongside Dreadton's resignation. As it turns out, I have some expanded thoughts on that, which I will offer here for the voters to showcase how I approach legal analysis, and as a public statement endorsing legislation by the Regional Assembly.
It is unusual to draft a ruling and subsequently opine at length on your own ruling, and it is ideal for the Court to speak with one voice when able. However, the process of drafting the ruling has convinced me that there is a ruling that is correct – the one the Court issued – and a ruling that I think had been better, but impossible, as it is outside of the Court’s power.
In Section 3 the Court noted that, prior to this ruling, someone without a nation in the region could have committed an act on the Forum or Discord that a resident could be tried for, but being a non-resident, the bad actor could not. This has been rectified by the Court.
However, the Court was limited by the Constitution and Legal Code in asserting The North Pacific’s jurisdiction over North Pacific soil. Acts committed outside of North Pacific soil, by non-residents or people who were not residents at the time, are outside the jurisdiction of The North Pacific. What does that mean?
We have several crimes that are effectively or necessarily committed against the region, but do not need residency to commit and do not always happen on North Pacific soil. As an example, take the crime of Espionage. If someone commits espionage, they are sharing privileged information with people without legitimate sanction by the Government. However, merely retaining information is not a crime. An industrious would-be spy could seek high office, access privileged information, retain it, leave the region, and only then share it. The crime, sharing information, happens outside the region, and is done by a person who is not a resident and was not a resident when the crime was committed. Can such a person be prosecuted? No, since such a prosecution would require claimed jurisdiction over crimes committed against the region, not just on crimes committed on North Pacific soil.
Several other crimes are likewise possible to commit for non-residents, or in a conspiracy between residents and non-residents. So why did the Court not extend The North Pacific’s jurisdiction to also include crimes committed against the region? For the simple reason that such a claim had no firm foundation in our laws. The Court cannot rewrite the Legal Code, but the Regional Assembly can.
It is also worth noting that while the Court found that it has the power to overturn, revise, or uphold the ruling it made, that does not mean a ruling by the Court is entirely without its own problems. Topics as weighty and challenging as jurisdiction are ideally settled by law, drafted, voted on, and ratified, rather than legislating from the bench. It is thus my opinion that it would be proper for interested citizens to draft legislation on jurisdiction to be submitted to the Regional Assembly, though I humbly suggest taking the Court’s opinion, analysis, and revision to The North Pacific’s jurisdiction as a basis for new legislation.
In Section 3 the Court noted that, prior to this ruling, someone without a nation in the region could have committed an act on the Forum or Discord that a resident could be tried for, but being a non-resident, the bad actor could not. This has been rectified by the Court.
However, the Court was limited by the Constitution and Legal Code in asserting The North Pacific’s jurisdiction over North Pacific soil. Acts committed outside of North Pacific soil, by non-residents or people who were not residents at the time, are outside the jurisdiction of The North Pacific. What does that mean?
We have several crimes that are effectively or necessarily committed against the region, but do not need residency to commit and do not always happen on North Pacific soil. As an example, take the crime of Espionage. If someone commits espionage, they are sharing privileged information with people without legitimate sanction by the Government. However, merely retaining information is not a crime. An industrious would-be spy could seek high office, access privileged information, retain it, leave the region, and only then share it. The crime, sharing information, happens outside the region, and is done by a person who is not a resident and was not a resident when the crime was committed. Can such a person be prosecuted? No, since such a prosecution would require claimed jurisdiction over crimes committed against the region, not just on crimes committed on North Pacific soil.
Several other crimes are likewise possible to commit for non-residents, or in a conspiracy between residents and non-residents. So why did the Court not extend The North Pacific’s jurisdiction to also include crimes committed against the region? For the simple reason that such a claim had no firm foundation in our laws. The Court cannot rewrite the Legal Code, but the Regional Assembly can.
It is also worth noting that while the Court found that it has the power to overturn, revise, or uphold the ruling it made, that does not mean a ruling by the Court is entirely without its own problems. Topics as weighty and challenging as jurisdiction are ideally settled by law, drafted, voted on, and ratified, rather than legislating from the bench. It is thus my opinion that it would be proper for interested citizens to draft legislation on jurisdiction to be submitted to the Regional Assembly, though I humbly suggest taking the Court’s opinion, analysis, and revision to The North Pacific’s jurisdiction as a basis for new legislation.
As a last comment on my last run, I made this self-deprecating declaration:
I hope I have proven that adequately, and if not, I will again suggest checking the internal deliberations once they are declassified.
I am open to answering questions pertaining to my candidacy.
