Vivanco for Justice XIII - Amicus Curiae, Animus Manendi

Vivanco

Vivanco

Legal Nerd? Yeah, that's me
-
-
-
Pronouns
She/Her They/Them
TNP Nation
vivanco
Discord
endlessjudge
sh1cCc6.png

VIVANCO FOR JUSTICE XIII
Friend of the Court, with Intent of Staying
Amicus Curiae, Animus Manendi
​
"Justice expects no reward, it accepts itself." claimed Cicero back in the Roman Republic. A man who devoted his life to law and justice. And much like him, who in the times of the Roman Republic devoted to its legal sistem, much like Ulpianus, Gaius, Paulus, Papinianus and Modestinus, with Valentinian III's Law of Citations.

This is but the thirdteen time I ran to the highest (and only) chamber of law in this region, and it is but with example and actions that I wish to prove why should I remain here.

I invite you all, citizens, to look to the archives, to the declassifications of the deliberations, to the resolutions, to the briefs submitted in the past, to, as well-informed citizens, have a clear and conscious mind as to who to place your trust and your vote upon. Because I will do all I have done, in the past and in the present, to ensure that I do too in the future. The project of Justice in this region, while some have lost the faith on it, I still hold close, and if we are to properly establish a virtual society based in the pillars of equality, democracy and justice, this latter should not be left to waver under an impression of fear of being any kind of international mockery.

I welcome all questions.​
 
To the newly or recently arrived citizen, I'll post a brief introduction to myself. A small "Curriculum Vitae".
  • Last Attorney General of the region.
  • Legislatively active in several fronts, mostly pertraining the improvement and optimisation of legal procedures.
  • Part of the Court several times, and Twice Chief Justice.
  • Past Court Examiner.
  • Past Bar Commissioner.
  • Serial Brief Redactor for R4R's.
  • Real-Life Procedural Law Attorney.
 
As mentioned elsewhere, I think there will be a pro-reform majority in the Court no matter what. I think it would be useful to outline what kind of reforms specifically you may have in mind.
 
Fregerson:
What do you think are the flaws of the Justice system as current?
Click to expand...
Gorundu:
Given your allusions to lost faith in our Justice system, I'm sure you are aware that a few weeks ago @Pallaith had called our justice system a "sham and an international joke" and described what he believed to be the flaws of the system, partially in response to a proposed bill of yours. Do you agree with his opinions? If so, what do you think are the potential steps that the Court can take to address them? If you don't agree, why not?
Click to expand...

I think it fitting to answer both of these questions in bulk, as they pertrain to the same topic; The Court and how it's percieved, int this instance, its flaws.

Firstly, about Pallaith's opinion, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, we each have our own, should we agree and disagree. In this instance, I greatly disagree with Pallaith's reasons on what the flaws of the system are, because on how procedural flaws exist within the system and how such can be "exploited". Such a thing is expected to be found within an argumentative and confrontative court system in which the whole base of a case when brought up to Court is the fact that two counter-positioned parts exist, with countering perspectives that face each-other in a civilised manner to solve a conflict. Such a method of resolving conflicts is what constitutes most of the current court systems around the world, be it in a civil enviroment, penal or even administrative.

To claim that it's a flaw of the Court that there are people smart enough to see a hole in the procedural law and use it in its favour is part of the "lay of the game". There is no perfect system by which such exploits can't happen, I'm sorry to say, and to expect to obtain one is to be almost naïve when it comes to the reality of legal procedures. We can stride for it, we can aim for it, but we can't expect it. It's part of how it works, and believe or not, most, if not all Court systems IRL actually work regarding on how smart or ingenious the attorneys are.

There's way bigger problems that the Justice system has that we could focus on. I'm not going to say activity, because it's been long and hard to think on how to improve the activity and way of working in all enviroments of TNP, but on my end, it's but the usual Court flaws that Courts have. The "language barrier" between legalese and common talk, or how upon seeing some crimes, instead of pursuing it, they decide to let go because either a perception from the court that "it won't matter in the end". Court is a punitive system, yes, but it's an argumentative system at that, who plays at a certain method and way of proceding in order to ensure security and publicity of laws and procedures of the Court.

I hope my answer is understood!

Simone:
As mentioned elsewhere, I think there will be a pro-reform majority in the Court no matter what. I think it would be useful to outline what kind of reforms specifically you may have in mind.
Click to expand...

I want to make clear, in case anyone thinks that it's only the Court's responsability to reform it, that it's not just the Court who can make such a reform. Everyone is a member of the Regional Assembly, who is the legislative pillar of the community that has the authority given by the democratic sense of the region to make any amends or reforms. We have even seen efforts in the RA to even try and "abolish" somewhat the Court System.

I don't really have any reform to bring in mind, if I'm honest, other than the ones I have already proposed as a private citizen in the past. But I will be working with those who want to reform from the bench and aid, if possible.
 
Vivanco:
It's part of how it works, and believe or not, most, if not all Court systems IRL actually work regarding on how smart or ingenious the attorneys are.
Click to expand...
A large part of Pallaith's post was about how we don't need to reflect the real world and aiming for a just resolution should be the ultimate goal. Some of what he said was:
Pallaith:
This isn’t the real world, we should be able to come up with a sensible system that can actually hold people accountable for the wrong they commit.
[...]
It’s all about the legal chess between the lawyers and not about justice or making sure that crime is punished. There’s too much obsession over the process so we miss the point of why a process would be in place. Sometimes you just want to prosecute someone for improperly using their office’s powers and be able to get a resolution and not get bogged down with who the more clever or careless lawyer was.
Click to expand...
I understand that, as you said, there can be no perfect system. But do you really believe that our system should be a reflection of the real world, where the laws are much more complex, where the stakes are much higher, and where legal work is an industry worth billions, maybe even trillions of dollars? And plus, there are many people who believe real-world justice systems are deeply flawed, because of things like procedural loopholes and the disparity in the quality of lawyers which make for uneven legal fights that are often skewed in favour of the rich and powerful. In a sense, I think they very much mirror the issues that Pallaith raised.
Vivanco:
how upon seeing some crimes, instead of pursuing it, they decide to let go because either a perception from the court that "it won't matter in the end"
Click to expand...
I also want to ask you to elaborate more on this issue - specifically why do you believe this perception exist and are there any examples which come to mind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top