We have received an application for Associate Justice. Please find below a link to the application form and the document that holds the answers provided by the applicant.

Applicant:
- BlockBuster2K43

Application Form | Responses

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

I find it hard to judge really as their answers lack too much detail, especially the moot court section.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

After reviewing the application, I would argue that BlockBuster2K43 is presently unqualified, though is near the minimum standard that would I would look for to be considered a base level of qualification. 

Their answers to the judicial philosophy section is acceptable in my opinion, but their moot court responses are not as well reasoned as I would like to see from a Justice of the Court. Perhaps inviting him to be more in-depth in a second chance would be enough to lend him a shot at being more qualified in my assessment.
 

---

Side note:

I think it might be a good idea to have the moot court section come first (after personal background) and then followed by judicial philosophy for future applicants. I would imagine that part of the problem we are seeing with less thorough answers in the moot court section stems from the applicant getting "tired" of the application process. I certainly felt that when I applied all those years ago, so I can only imagine how a person new to NS and TSP must feel.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

(This post was last modified: 06-29-2022, 02:02 PM by Griffindor.)

Reply

I concur. Their responses to the moot court section are not up to the standard that I would expect, particularly since there isn't much discussion of how the law applies to each case or why exactly they are deciding the way they have. I lean towards not qualified based on those answers, but I will ask them to expand in the event that did indeed get tired.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

This is the response provided by BlockBuster2K43:

Hello,

Thank you for submitting an application for Associate Justice. We have reviewed your answers and would appreciate a response to the following at your earliest convenience:

1. Please provide insight into how your background as a member and as a government official within the South Pacific contribute towards your qualifications for appointment as an Associate Justice.
    
   • Please let us know if you would like to amend your answers to [LUMC.03] Review of the Ban of Bail Organa and [LUMC.04] Camus v. Ant-Man in order to provide greater detail and, similar to actual Court rulings, specify the relevant laws that come into play and support your decisions in each case. You may find your answers below, for your convenience:
     
     
     Review of the Ban of Bail Organa

     I find this question justifiable.
     
     I find that the evidence in this case, Article 2, Section 2, Sub-section B comes across as too broad and not very well defined. I feel that considering this, this case is justifiable as there is a legal grey area about whether this specific law applies to the specific legal questions being asked by the plaintiff in this case.
     
     I would personally vote in favour of the plaintiff as in my view there is evidence that this specific sub-section law is too broad and not defined well enough to apply to the action undertaken by the Local Council against the plaintiff.
     
     
     Camus v. Ant-Man

     I believe that this legal case doesn't have probable cause.
     
     I feel this way as Ant-Man has not provided nearly enough evidence to backup their claims of misconduct by Camus. They would need to provide more evidence for me to personally be interested in this case, I feel that their claims are baseless. I personally would dismiss this legal case as there is not enough evidence to support the claims of Ant-Man.
     
     

Thank you again for your application, and I hope to hear back from you soon.

Regards,

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice of the South Pacific

Hello there, thank you for your message with regards to specific questions within my application to become an Associate Justice within the South Pacific.

1. I believe that my current roles within the Government of the South Pacific, and previous government posts provide me and have helped me gain a better understanding and grip of the environment and reality that faces the High Court on a daily basis within the South Pacific. I feel that my current position as Deputy Chair of the Assembly has given me a better understanding of our fundamental principles and laws that the South Pacific is based on, and how any law within our region applies to every citizen within the South Pacific. Any specific law within our region can completely change the outlook of a legal case. I feel that I possess good problem solving and teamwork skills which are essential skills for the role of an Associate Justice.

2. I do wish to update my response with regards to one of the two legal cases being asked.

I wish to update my response for the case [LUMC.03] Review of the Ban of Bail Organa to say:

I find this case justifiable as Bail Organa may have been expressing his constitutional right to free speech on the Regional Message Board as laid out in Section III, sub-section 1 of the Charter of the South Pacific, 'All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only reasonable moderation policies.' However, they were sending many messages that and riling up the game side community in dangerous and harmful ways. The Local Council provided evidence to support their story that came true such as dates compared to Bail Organa who was unable to provide such evidence on their behalf. Therefore, I would personally rule against Bail Organa in this legal case as I feel that even though they were using their right to free speech they were engaging in troll and spamming like behaviour, the Local Council was simply acting in accordance with the law to contain and remove the culprit.

I do not wish to update my response for the case [LUMC.04] Camus V. Ant-Man


Many thanks for your message!
I wish you all the best.

                   Yours Sincerely,
                                BlockBuster2K43

I am not comfortable with their response to LUMC.03. I see claims in the answer that do not match what was provided in the prompt, and few references to the law to back those assertions. The moot court questions were clearly meant to encourage critical thinking and for the most part have no right or wrong answers, but I worry that this particular answer does not show the level of consideration and reference to the law that one would expect from an Associate Justice. I think BlockBuster2K43 would benefit from spending more time involved in judicial affairs (though I recognise that there is not an abundance of such opportunities at present) before seeking a seat on the bench.

Any thoughts?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Agreed.

Maybe we should give Bleakfoot a poke and tell him to submit an application? His recent Amicus Curae briefs were very good.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

(This post was last modified: 07-01-2022, 04:36 AM by Belschaft.)

Reply

I agree with Bel. If we are looking to add someone to our ranks (before the potential GC), of the most recent applicants, I'd rather it be Bleakfoot.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply