[Accepted] Application for admission to the Bar

[Attempted Socialism]

Application for Admission to the Bar

Applicant name: Attempted Socialism

Part One: Experience as a Justice or counsel

1. Have you served as a Justice (including as a Temporary Hearing Officer)? <Yes> (if No, move to question 5)

2. Between what dates did you serve as a Justice (including as a Temporary Hearing Officer)?
November 12, 2022 to November 12, 2023.

3. Were you the Moderating Justice in any criminal trials or requests for review? (If so, please identify which criminal trials or requests for review)
Yes:

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

4. Were you the author or a co-author of any Official Opinions, Verdicts or Sentencing Orders of the Court? (If so, please identify the Official Opinions, Verdicts or Sentencing Orders)
Yes, I authored the opinions above, and joined the following opinions with at times substantial contributions to the opinion during the drafting process:

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

5. Have you served as a Prosecutor? <No> (if No, move to question 8)

6. Which criminal trials did you prosecute?

7. Did you participate in any requests for review related to those trials? (If so, please identify the requests for review)

8. Have you served as counsel to a defendant in a criminal trial? <No> (if No, move to question 11)

9. In which criminal trials were you counsel to a defendant?

10. Did you participate in any requests for review related to those trials? (If so, please identify the requests for review)

Part Two: Legal Writing

11. Have you authored any substantial legal work? (Examples include: briefs in requests for review; analysis or explanations of the law; arguments in criminal trials; bills that have been made law. However, it does not include any Official Opinion, Verdict or Sentencing Order of the Court or any decision or argument made in a trial or request for review identified in Part One) <Yes> (if No, move to question 14)

12. Have you authored any briefs in requests for review? (If so, please identify the requests for review)

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

13. Have you authored any other substantial legal work? (If so, identify no more than two)

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Oops! We ran into some problems.

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Part Three: Other Relevant Experience

14. Have you served in a Constitutionally-mandated Elected Office? (This does not include the office of Justice) <No> (if No, move to question 17)

15. Which offices have you served in and between what dates?

16. Were you required to make a decision which required you to analyse and apply the law? (If so, please identify no more than two examples of this and explain why they show substantial knowledge of the law)

17. Have you served as a government official in any other office in the previous two years? (This does not include any office identified in Part One)<Yes> (if No, move to question 20)

18. Which offices have you served in and between what dates?
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs since September 12, 2022.

19. Were you required to make a decision which required you to analyse and apply the law? (If so, please identify an example of this and explain why it shows substantial knowledge of the law)
Discussions about international relations often touch on our legal code, but not in a way that shows substantial knowledge of the law.

Part Four: Acceptability Disclosure

20. Have you previously been convicted of any crime in The North Pacific? <No> (if No, move to question 22)

21. What crime/crimes were you convicted of? (Please identify the date of each conviction)

22. Have you previously been recalled from office as Justice or Prosecutor? <No> (if No, move to question 24)

23. On what date/dates were you recalled from office?

24. Have you previously been found by the Court to be in contempt of court or to have submitted an appeal or review that was frivolous or solely for the purpose of delaying proceedings? <No> (if No, move to question 26)

25. In which trials or requests for review did the Court make those findings?

26. Have you previously had your membership of the Bar revoked for any reason other than ceasing to be a citizen? <No> (if No, move to question 28)

27. On what date/dates was your membership revoked?

28. If you answered Yes to any of questions 20, 22, 24, or 26, why do you consider that you would be an acceptable member of the bar, despite any prior conviction, recall, adverse finding by the Court, or revocation of Bar membership?

Part Six: Request for Admission and Declaration

I apply to the Bar Commissioners for admission to the Bar.

I declare that the information I have provided in this application is true and that I have not failed to provide any information required by this application.

 

[Dreadton]

Vote of 2-0 with 1 Abstain, The application is accepted

 

[Dreadton]

Dreadton

Nov 12, 2023

@Lord Dominator and @Eluvatar

Attempted Socialism has applied to the bar.

I do not believe he is fit for the bar for his various actions during the current criminal trial. However any vote i cast would be seen as vindictive. I will abstain from voting.

Lord Dominator

Nov 15, 2023


I understand why you would not want them as such, but I personally am fine with accepting them

Eluvatar

Nov 15, 2023

I need to closely read their application but I anticipate I will approve.

Dreadton

Nov 15, 2023

Lord Dominator:
I understand why you would not want them as such, but I personally am fine with accepting them

To be clear, the issue is not that he screwed up procedure, that happens. its his commentary that makes me believe he is not fit. Threatening a court case over Defense counsel doing defense things would have been enough but his characterization in both the criminal thread and r4r furthers my belief in his lack of fitness.

From the Criminal case

Thus, with no outstanding motions to consider, we can be in the argumentation phase without any shenanigans.

From the r4r

The Court is not an enemy of the Defence, but a neutral arbiter of evidence and argument. Yet, in an effort to get the case dismissed with prejudice, rather than arguing the case, the Defence made a mockery of the trial and abused the Court’s trust.

Now, the reply to such a question, had the Defence realised the issue of posting the transcript or clearly accepting the evidence, should have included a reminder to the Court to get the paperwork in order. Instead, the Defence waited three days to ask a clarifying question.

Note its no ones responsibility to tell a moderating justice to do their job.

At this point, the Defence chooses deception rather than allowing the case to proceed:

This brazen disregard for the Court should not be rewarded.

From Chambers (Discord Group Message with Tlmoz, myself, and AS)

I dont see any grounds for you to be charged with gross misconduct, if you hadn't used the situation to try for a mistrial

(Emphasis mine)

While I know since I am involved with this, you will see it in that light and that is fair. I would point to these to show how personal bias colored his responses for what should be a neutral position. He took very basic legal practices as a personal offense. I would worry that if he was chosen to represent someone on in a case he would allow judicial efficiency to superseded the rights of his client.

Eluvatar

Nov 16, 2023

He felt tricked. That gets people's dander up.

Dreadton

Nov 16, 2023

I am putting forth my position and why, but as i said i will not vote on his application.

Eluvatar

Nov 16, 2023

Acknowledging that he was intemperate toward you, I am not convinced it shows a fatal weakness of character. At least not one bad enough to deny the Bar.

Dreadton

Nov 21, 2023

Its been 5 days, i call for a vote.

I Abstain

Lord Dominator


Thursday at 7:51 PM


Aye

Eluvatar
Yesterday at 10:21 PM

Having more fully reviewed their application,

Aye

 

[Attempted Socialism]

Dreadton your inane personal dislike for me is not a surprise, but your novel interpretation of that snippet from the Discord conversation can't be left standing, because you have to know that it's a lie when you fabricate a quote in an attempt to make me say the opposite of what I said. I don't think I can ever change your mind, so I will just correct the record for posterity.
Dreadton said, on October 11:

[16:06]Dreadton: i would ask for a restatment that we are in the argument phase
[16:06]Dreadton: i dont want someone to come back later and say hehe you screwed up here see you in court

This here is implying that someone will see Dreadton in court. As I wrote in the R4R this seemed a bit strange to me at the time since it was so unthinkable, but I didn't realise the pretense behind it. The idea that someone might drag Dreadton into court for their behaviour was brought up by Dreadton again the same day:

[23:50]Dreadton: Im going to say this here but @Kim Philby i am personally insulted by you stating that my motion is shaninings. My job isnt to cater to the courts thoughts on how i should do the job, its to give the defendant the best defense, uphold the law, and protect the rights of the citizenry. If i failed to bring that motion i could be charged with gross misconduct easily. Disagree with me on the law, rule against me for what ever reason, please do not imply i am just being difficult to be difficult

(My underlining)
Now this is plain wrong. What misconduct could anyone charge Dreadton with, had they failed to file their motion? If the defendants aren't satisfied with their counsel the defendants can remove their counsel, but I can't find any hypothetical situation where gross misconduct is on the table. Which I tell Dreadton 7 minutes later:

[23:57]Kim Philby: I don't see any grounds for you to be charged with gross misconduct, if you hadn't used the situation to try for a mistrial. Not even minor misconduct. You're not in a government position, so the only people who could do anything to you are the defendants, who could hypothetically remove you as their attorney.

So the context is very clear: I am referring the hypothetical that Dreadton had set up, and rejecting the notion that Dreadton could have risked any criminal liability in case they hadn't filed their motion. The idea that I am threatening a court case here is absurd; I am forthrightly stating that no court case can even be brought, in a response to Dreadton's apparent fear of a court case.
Even in the quote that Dreadton fabricated to make it seem like I was threatening defense counsel I do nothing of the sort. "I don't see any grounds for you to be charged with gross misconduct" is not a threat in any language I know of. The sentence that Dreadton has highlighted above is a bit weird without the context, because it appears I am talking about a situation that didn't happen, but even without any of the context I fail to see how it could be threatening. So why did Dreadton first remove all context and then apply the novel interpretation that this rejection of the possibility of a criminal charge is suddenly a threat of a criminal charge?
Well, I already played my hand by calling it inane personal dislike.