We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Permanent Justice Appointment
#11

I second the motion for a disapproval vote.
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?
 
CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
#12

Since 2013, the regional judiciary has had essentially four iterations:
  1. Supreme Court (a single elected Chief Justice)
  2. High Court (three elected Justices) and Appellate Court (a single appointed Appellate Justice)
  3. High Court (four elected justices with one rotating member recusing for appeals)
  4. High Court (a single appointed Permanent Justice)
Farengeto has been involved in iterations #1, #3 and #4. He happens to be the only person in the region with that distinction. That alone gives him a particularly insight into the workings of the judiciary throughout the years, something that cannot be said of other possible appointees. That is not to say other appointees may not have their own strengths, my point is simply that, in this particular aspect, Farengeto is very qualified.

In terms of his membership of The Island League, I actually do agree that a Justice should not be a member of any political organisation, and made that abundantly clear when the prohibition on joining political organisations was lifted. I should clarify that I, personally, have no doubt that Farengeto would be very professional in handling cases where a conflict of interest would take place, and would recuse where it was necessary, but at the same time I do recognise the potential for bias accusations.

Obviously we should hear from Farengeto, who will be in a better positions to address these concerns, but perhaps a reasonable compromise would be for him to resign from The Island League for the duration of his term. In the future, I really feel it would be in the best interest of the region to restrict Justices from joining political organisations, and requiring them to resign from them before taking office.


Or not. You've obviously blatantly ignored the content and substance of my entire post, so maybe I should do the same with yours and just support Farengeto, regardless of his political affiliations. -_-
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
#13

(01-31-2017, 11:34 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
Since 2013, the regional judiciary has had essentially four iterations:
  1. Supreme Court (a single elected Chief Justice)
  2. High Court (three elected Justices) and Appellate Court (a single appointed Appellate Justice)
  3. High Court (four elected justices with one rotating member recusing for appeals)
  4. High Court (a single appointed Permanent Justice)
Farengeto has been involved in iterations #1, #3 and #4. He happens to be the only person in the region with that distinction. That alone gives him a particularly insight into the workings of the judiciary throughout the years, something that cannot be said of other possible appointees. That is not to say other appointees may not have their own strengths, my point is simply that, in this particular aspect, Farengeto is very qualified.

While I appreciate the history lesson, I never said he wasn't qualified. I said he had too many conflicts of interest to currently be useful in this role.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#14

Kris, I think it's important to hear how Farengeto feels about this nomination and discussion. Does he think that being a member of TIL may cause COI? What alternatives might we need to prevent a Permanent Justice, and a singular one at that, from constantly needing to recuse themselves. I agree that he has a lot of experience. I also think that finding a truly neutral person in TSP has been a difficult and an ongoing mess.

Let's be honest there is a spectaculor history of failures of the court system in TSP...I'm wondering how this iteration will be any different. Perhaps that is a question for another thread but court reform has been an issue in TSP for a while now and its still a WIP which is sad and possibly speaks to continuing need of a reform\revamp of the system

I do not have any particular issues with Farengeto as a justice, in terms of qualifications, but again would like to hear from him about the concerns voiced here. What are our options in case the sole justice needs to be recused?

The other side of this issue is we will be hard-pressed to find a justice who is not politicized in some way.

EDIT: Also, for those moving for dissaproval..to make this seem less about the nominee and his not being of your party..perhaps some alternatives would be important to discuss?

Right now the sole reason seems the political party organization affiliation? If political parties are becoming a thing in TSP, and it seems they are, then this needs to be discussed...are we preventing people from any political party from taking on this position? Is that legal and\or advisable? For one thing it seems to be punitive towards political organizations which is not, I hope, our aim.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | 
Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~


My Pinterest




 
#15

Farengeto was not involved in the current draft for court reform that is being worked on.

As far as parties go - while I don't think Faren specifically would overstep boundaries here, having a restriction on membership is certainly reasonable. But honestly, that's something you solve by introducing the appropriate legislation, not disapproving of any nominee that may have some affiliation or another.
[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]
#16

(01-31-2017, 11:06 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(01-31-2017, 10:41 PM)Griffindor13 Wrote: I agree that there might be some concern with having a member of a political party on the court, but we have to be willing to try it. We shouldn't fear a "what if" conflict of interest, instead we should be able to trust that they can make the right decision.

We have mechanisms in place to reduce the presence of CoIs. For example, Article 4 Section 11 of the Court Procedures Act is a mechanism, also Article 3 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Judiciary Act also provides a mechanism. The first one listed can have either side of a case motion for recuse, which drastically lowers a CoI, and the second listed, is an automatic recuse already in the law pertaining to membership in the CRS.

Even with the mechanisms in place, you still have the option to be able to prove with sufficient evidence that there was a CoI that influenced the case, and be able to appeal it.

Rejecting Farengeto's appointment for being in a political party is basically the only reason why this was brought up, like I mentioned earlier, we have a CRS mechanism in place already, so we are down to one CoI. I'm sure a simple recuse from one TIL court case shouldn't cost him the job.

I personally give Farengeto my full confidence and endorsement for this confirmation.



(If court reform ever got finished, maybe we could get rid of even more CoIs) Smile

I have to disagree here Griffin and, actually, take this a step farther.

First, I don't think it's productive to have a judge who can't rule on wide swathes of the law. If Far is going to need to recuse himself frequently, he shouldn't be the Permanent Justice.

Second, your call out is the perfect example of what you all are missing. As far as I'm concerned, Far cannot rule on and ounce of the court reform if he was involved in its drafting.

Finally, you're primarily looking at criminal cases, not legal questions. As Article 3 Clause 7 of the Court Procedures Act states, appeals can only be heard if something is in violation of "procedural due process, a contradiction of law, or judicial misconduct." Let's also note: who would make sure a determination?

Conflicts of interest are major problems with the judiciary and, if we're being honest, this is something that plagued Far's last turn in the judiciary. Now, everyone is ready to rubber stamp him because we like him without the slightest consideration for how this is actually going work.

Until I get appropriate answers and reassurances rather than a rubber stamp, I'm going to call for a disapproval vote.

Addressing your first point, we already have a mechanism for CRS CoIs which we are all pretty much agreeing that isn't the big problem, its the party affiliation. But, (serious) parties have now existed for an entire year (It's actually the 1 year anniversary of the APC today), and there hasn't been a single case brought to the court by either party. Still, one might ask, "What if we have a party case?", I say take a chance, one recuse from one case isn't the end of the world, and definitely shouldn't bar anyone from being on the court. We have a pool of justices for the rare occasions on which the PJ must recuse.

On to your second point, Just like Roavin said, Farengeto has not drafted any part of court reform, If you would like to verify that, join the APC discord and look through what we have, he isn't even on the thread for court reform. Also, are you saying that if lets say, Glen or Bel, or anyone else drafted a law, and was later put on to the court, and later that law was brought to the court, I could trust that one of the architects of that law could clarify what they meant, without bias.

Addressing your last point, when there is "procedural due process, a contradiction of law, or judicial misconduct", to my understanding a pool justice will verify those claims, and decide an appeal. As for legal cases, I trust that bias can be cast aside for the rare time a CoI may arise.

In the end, I can't recall that there has been a CoI that I've seen since I've been here. We do need to work out a new system, which is why we should work out court reform further.
-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
#17

I think Tsu's concern isn't necessarily a case that is brought before the court by one of the parties, but rather if an interested or involved party of the case is a fellow comrade of the judge.
[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]
#18

(02-01-2017, 08:40 AM)Roavin Wrote: I think Tsu's concern isn't necessarily a case that is brought before the court by one of the parties, but rather if an interested or involved party of the case is a fellow comrade of the judge.

This.

And, to your earlier point Roavin, while yeah, it would be nice to discuss this ... ya know ... not now, this hasn't been an issue *until* now.

I'm happy to have a discussion on asking the judge to step down from a political party. BUT — Far won't be held to that standards because his nomination is already in place. It would be unfair to appoint him to the position, then pass legislation saying he has to leave the TIL and forcing him to do so.

These are the reasons that I would like Far and/or the Cabinet to provide answers to these issues as opposed to those willing to rubber stamp this nomination distracting from the point that I'm trying to raise.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#19

Members of TIL who are in the Cabinet have respected the line drawn between the Cabinet and political parties. I have no reservations that Farengeto will continue the tradition as Permanent Justice.

Nobody seemed all that concerned with Raven's impartialty, despite his very public and obvious friendships and rivalries.
#20

I look forward to hearing from Far on this

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011


One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels 
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .