Statement by the Cabinet on the Nomination of Rebeltopia and Awe as Associate Justices of the High Court Fellow Legislators, dear Chairman, after careful deliberation, including consultation with Chief Justice Kringalia, the Cabinet has decided to nominate both Rebeltopia and Awe to serve on the High Court of the South Pacific. While we are only obligated to fill the vacancy left by Sandaoguo, Judicial Act 1.1 explicitly permits that the High Court may comprise of more than three Justices in total. Rebeltopia is the preferred choice expressed by Chief Justice Kringle and Associate Justice Belschaft. He works logically and methodically and understands that avoiding absurdities is important in judicial interpretation. When the matter is not clear, Rebeltopia gravitates more towards the letter rather than the spirit of the law. His record of service to the region is extensive and includes a term on the Court in 2014. Awe is described as a candidate with some aptitude and qualifications by the Court. The Court is concerned that Awe considers the spirit of the law more than the letter of the law. However, The Cabinet is satisfied Awe shows a good understanding of judicial interpretation and the need to avoid absurdities, as well as a creative approach to seeking supporting arguments not just in the close vicinity of the specific law referenced by a case. Awe also has a solid record of service to the region, and gathered much judicial experience in the High Court in 2015 It is the Cabinet's opinion that these are two very good candidates, and while each showed some flaws when evaluated and tested in a vacuum, the required signoff mechanisms in our judicial system mean that there will be a collegial discussion about any opinions reached by the court to smooth over any such imperfections. Given the Court's current caseload as well as the diametrically different judicial philosophies between these two well-qualified candidates, the Cabinet unanimously agreed that appointing both to the Court is the most appropriate course of action. Chairman, with the power vested in me as Prime Minister of the Coalition, I declare that the Cabinet has in good faith appointed Rebeltopia and Awe to serve as Associate Justices in accordance with per Article 1 Section 5 of the Judicial Act, and request that the corresponding assembly procedure is initiated. CABINET OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC March 29, 2019 Answers by Rebeltopia What roles do the letter and the spirit of the law have in judicial interpretation, and with respect to each other? They both mean a substantial amount to how the Court should interpret a law. The spirit of the law can be convoluted, with so many different Legislators changing bits and pieces of the original bill. The letter of the law, in my opinion, is what the Court should rule based upon, as that is the literal word of the law. Laws should be written in such a way to convey the actual intent. To what extent should the customary understanding and application of a law inform its interpretation by a judge? In my opinion, the interpretation of a law should be one of the common sense, literal translation. To what extent should prior rulings bind or guide the decision of a judge? What is the importance of judicial precedent in informing cases? Legal precedent is an important and great tool for the court to look back on and into the minds of past Courts. But at the same time, current and future Courts should not be held to past rulings. Laws change, and with that comes changes on how laws can be interpreted. Under what circumstances would custom, judicial precedent and other sources of interpretation not be useful as a means of informing a judge? A circumstance that customary, judicial precedent, and other sources of interpretation of the law would not be useful is when that information is not relevant, or does not completely pertain to the case at hand, or if said information is construed in a way that bastardizes the prior rulings or interpretations of the law. What is the importance of amicus curiae briefs, testimonies and questioning in the consideration of cases? Amicus briefs can be helpful to the court, as they can provide additional information that might not be of use to or known by either party involved in the case. This is important as it can give the court pertinent information that relates to the case. Testimonies and judicial questions are the meat and potatoes of the case, as they provide the bulk of the relevant information and lay out the two sides of the story. Specific questions asked by the court can and usually do bring out the truth in any case. What issues should be considered when deciding the justiciability of a case or when finding probable cause of a crime? Justiciability: Does the question make sense: technically? legally? Does the question have legal merit? Probable Cause: Has the accuser provided preliminary evidence in line with the law the accused has been accused of? Is there enough preliminary evidence to warrant a trial? What issues should be considered when deciding whether or not to recuse from a case? Recusals should happen when a presiding Justice would have stock in the outcome of the case, or if said Justice has inside knowledge of or took part in anything that may come up in the ongoing case. What relative importance would you ascribe to expediency and thoroughness, respectively, when considering cases and drafting rulings? A balance of speedy yet thorough consideration of the presented information is crucial. Trials and Legal Questions that drag on for weeks tend to have the same information presented over and over again. On the other side, a Justice must make sure they have given enough time so that most, if not all, pertinent information is received to come up with the most accurate ruling. How important is it to explain within a ruling the legal, customary, evidentiary and other arguments that contributed towards a decision? Its very important for the Justices to explain how they came to the ruling, and on what legal grounds. The more information that the Court can give, the more likely it is to be understood, which can lead to less appeals or other legal questions on the same basis. What role should the Court have with respect to the balance of power between the three branches of government? Since the Judicial Act requires that all of the Justices be legislators, its my understanding that the Assembly wanted an active legislator to be Justice. As such, a Justice should be active in the Assembly. The Associate Justices are not legally firewalled from running for executive office, but, in my opinion, shouldn't hold both an Associate Justice and an elected executive government position. What role should judges have in regional, political and governmental life? See answer to last question. What steps should judges take to avoid conflicts of interest in fact and by appearance? A Justice should recuse them-self if there is a conflict of interest. Should the High Court seek to train judicial and legal talent? If it should, why, and what steps should be taken to train talent? Would your skills and prior experiences be useful for that? If it should not, why not? Yes. While the Justice appointments are "lifetime" appointments, there are times that a judiciary position becomes available in some way, shape, or form. At these times, it'd be helpful to the sitting Cabinet that is appointing the Justice(s) to have able legislators to choose from. What role should public opinion and pressure, potential popularity or unpopularity, personal views or friendships and political alliances play in the judicial process? None. When ruling, the Court is legally obligated to - per the Judicial Act - "not be influenced by prejudice based on personal bias, corruption by undue influence, or discord" (2.1.a). Mock Court: Appending of Titles Determination of Justiciability Whereas Steamland has requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the interpretation of the law with the following question: Does adding one's elected position to a statement make it an official statement? Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies. It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows: The question is deemed justifiable. The question shall be assigned the case number HCLQ0000 and be referred to in full as Official Government Statements. The Court invites all able and willing members to submit their views and stances on this Legal Question in the form of amicus cruise briefs, no later than 27 February 2019. The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request private testimonies from, other government institutions and individuals, for the purposes of research and clarification of context. The Court retains, in compliance with the Charter and the Judicial Act, the sole right to issue an opinion on this Legal Question. It is so ordered. Rebeltopia Associate Justice ---------- HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC - HCLQ0000 - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS Does adding one's elected position to a statement make it an official statement? 1 March 2019 Justice Rebeltopia delivered the Opinion. Summary of Opinion It is the opinion of the court that actions that do not violate any specific law cannot be found as illegal. There are no laws - forumside or in-game - that dictate what an official release from the Local Council may or may not look like, or that any number of Local Councilors must sign off on such a statement. By adding the Local Councilors title to the post, it can be reasonably said to be an official statement from that - and only that - Councilor. Interpretation of gameside laws and guidelines are the responsibility of the Local Council, and interpretations of those laws and guidelines are subject each Councilor. If one would like to have the backing of the rest of the office, all they must do is have proof that the others agree, and they can make the post for the Council as a whole. As such, the High Court concludes that Adding one's elected Position to any statements do indeed make it an official statement from a member of that elected position, but not necessarily that of the whole group." Mock Court: Organa v. Palpatine Determination of Justiciability Whereas Bail Organa requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the application of the Criminal Code with the following question: "I contend that Prime Minister Palpatine has committed treason, by attempting to dissolve the Coalition without the consent of the Assembly." Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of probable cause that the preliminary evidence presented constitutes commission of a crime; It is resolved with respect to this question as follows: It is deemed not justiciable, on account that the preliminary evidence presented does not constitute probable cause that Palpatine has committed treason. This determination does not preclude the future filing of charges with additional evidence that would address the concerns expressed herewith. It is so ordered. Rebeltopia Associate Justice ---------- In-Chambers Opinion The Criminal Code defines Treason as ""plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the Delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity against which a state of war exists."" The filer is correct in stating that ""dissolving the Coalition should count under 'plotting against the Coalition,'"" the Court has found that, at this moment, the accused has not single-handedly dissolved the Charter, and therefore has not plotted against the Coalition. While some may the statement made by Palpatine egregious, it does not fall under the definition of treason. Rebeltopia Associate Justice Answers by Awe What roles do the letter and the spirit of the law have in judicial interpretation, and with respect to each other? I believe the letter and spirit of the law are both important pillars of judicial interpretation. However, when these two elements present an incongruence, I believe the spirit of the law should be upheld over the letter of the law, unless it is apparent that the following the letter of the law will result in the most appropriate outcome in one's reading of the law. To what extent should the customary understanding and application of a law inform its interpretation by a judge? The customary understanding and application of the law should inform its interpretation to a certain extent, unless the letter of the law presents an obvious contradiction to its interpretation. To what extent should prior rulings bind or guide the decision of a judge? What is the importance of judicial precedent in informing cases? Judicial precedent and prior rulings should hold some weight in decisions insofar as it should guide the Court in developing a more complete understanding of the spirit of the law as have been interpreted in prior rulings. Under what circumstances would custom, judicial precedent and other sources of interpretation not be useful as a means of informing a judge? Where prior rulings diverge from the law in its present wording due to legislative changes or where judicial precedent is erroneous, then the Court shall be at liberty to overturn or disregard such precedent. What is the importance of amicus curiae briefs, testimonies and questioning in the consideration of cases? Briefs and testimonies are important insofar as it provides the Court with a multitude of views that the Court should take into account when seeking to understand the spirit of the law. However, as such briefs may be prejudiced by an individual's bias that will sway the Court towards a viewpoint or another, the Court should not ascribe particular importance towards one brief over another, nor should briefs form the foundation of the Court's decision in a particular ruling. What issues should be considered when deciding the justiciability of a case or when finding probable cause of a crime? The justiciability of a case should be predicated upon whether the questions set forth in the case have merit or are otherwise substantive enough to be of value to judicial precedent or otherwise have significant impact upon the legislative and executive branches of government. Should they be consider superfluous or of a political nature, then the question should be discarded. When it comes to probable cause, the Court should consider the motivations behind the Petitioner's filing of such cases and whether the charges set forth merit. The Court should also consider whether circumstantial evidence, insofar as is available to the Court, merits the filing of criminal charges. What issues should be considered when deciding whether or not to recuse from a case? Whether the Justice has a conflict of interest in a case or where a Justice could potentially be perceived as an interested party in a case, the Justice should be recused. What relative importance would you ascribe to expediency and thoroughness, respectively, when considering cases and drafting rulings? The Court should, barring the most exceptional circumstances, hold thoroughness as its primary impetus behind drafting rulings, to provide the most holistic outcome. Exceptional circumstances may include questions related to regional security or electoral disputes, where the Court ought to be thorough, yet be expedient in its ruling. With regards to this, the Court should perhaps be charged with the power to issue interim rulings/instructions. When it comes to the consideration of cases, expediency should be the Court's primary impetus, as most considerations should be rather straightforward. The Court should also be able to provide, in a reasonable amount of time, the reasons for a case's non-justiciability, should it be warranted. How important is it to explain within a ruling the legal, customary, evidentiary and other arguments that contributed towards a decision? It is important to explain fully all relevant factors that contributed towards a decision, to ensure that a decision has been holistically and fully contemplated prior to its publication. The robust explanation will also provide for greater insight and clarity when it comes to judicial precedent. What role should the Court have with respect to the balance of power between the three branches of government? The Court should serve as an arbitrator and mediator between the executive and legislative branches of government should conflict arise, serving as the ultimate balance in the balance of power. What role should judges have in regional, political and governmental life? Judges should remain active participants in the region and government as their judicial experience may provide valuable contributions and insights to the legislature. However, with regards to political opinions, judges should be mindful to remain largely neutral in public discourse, for fear that members of the region may conflate one's personal opinions to be one's legal representation. What steps should judges take to avoid conflicts of interest in fact and by appearance? Non-inference in overtly political discourse, both within and outside the region. Judges should also refrain from making snide comments in public, especially where there exists a disagreement between members of the legislature. Should the High Court seek to train judicial and legal talent? If it should, why, and what steps should be taken to train talent? Would your skills and prior experiences be useful for that? If it should not, why not? Yes. While the Judiciary may present high barriers of entry in itself, the Court should not shy away from training members who are interested or otherwise experienced in legal issues as Court Interns, Clerks or to service in a Judicial Reserve to broaden the scope of legal experience in the South Pacific. What role should public opinion and pressure, potential popularity or unpopularity, personal views or friendships and political alliances play in the judicial process? A Justice should first and foremost uphold impartiality toward public opinion or other issues of a personal nature, seeking to contemplate only one's legal considerations when it comes to the judicial process. Mock Court: Appending of Titles Question is justiciable as Petitioner has demonstrated that the question has merit, as a precursor to a follow up case, the filing of which will rest upon the Court's ruling in this instance Ruling: It is in the opinion of this Court that appending one's title to a statement alone does not constitute an official statement, unless the statement in question relates to the official's job scope. At the outset, members should note that this question differs in substance from the question posed in SCLQ1304, as the testimony submitted to the Court by Local Councillor Veggie Basket would suggest that the Councillor has a habit of appending his title to his posts ""when they are not part of an ongoing conversation"". The Court has in this instance, chosen to interpret this statement broadly, assuming that the Councillor will append his title to all his RMB posts be it an act of role-play or in his official duties. This makes it largely indistinguishable as to when he is acting in his official capacity and when he is not. Thus, this Court argues that the opinion as rendered by Justice QuietDad in SCLQ1304 is somewhat erroneous in that it suggests that all posts to which one's position is appended constitutes official statements, not having considered the various instances in which one's position can be appended to a post. The Court is of the opinion that a more nuanced approach should be applied to the issue at hand, putting into contemplation whether the official appending the title is discharging their duties as set forth by the Charter and relevant laws or whether the post relates to miscellaneous matters that should, under reasonable contemplation, be perceived as being a post made by a member of the South Pacific community." Mock Court: Organa v. Palpatine The Court finds probable case that Prime Minister Palpatine has committed Treason. The Charter states in Article II, Section 1 that ""The sovereignty of the region lies with the Coalition of the South Pacific. No other group claiming legitimacy will be recognized. The integrity of the Coalition, in its forums and the region, shall not be challenged or violated by any government official, internal dissidents, or other regions."" The Section explicitly states that the region is the Coalition and that it ""shall not be challenged or violated by any government official"". While the Defence argues that the Defendant was making a statement, the Court ruled in SCLQ1304 that statements bearing a letterhead constitute official statements. Seeing as the statement made by the Defendant was made in the name of the Prime Minister, it can thus be deduced that this statement was made in an official capacity and should not simply be viewed as a remark from a citizen. The Court also ruled in HCCC1701 that although a single statement alone does not constitute treason, the Court ought to apply a holistic view of the Defendant's actions. Thus, while this declaration to dissolve the Coalition alone does not necessary constitute treason, the Defendant's intent to commit Treason by removing the power of its democratic institutions is clear.

(This post was last modified: 04-12-2019, 05:32 AM by Bzerneleg.)

Reply

Since I have talked to Bzerneleg...

I want to say that, if confirmed, I will resign from the appointed Deputy Chair position, effective the moment the confirmation vote ends.

Conflict of Interest

Current WA: Rebel-topia
Past & present:
TSP: Deputy Chair of Assembly (8/18 - Present), Committee for State Security member (02/14-10/14), High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14), Chair of Assembly (12/13 - 03/14), Vice Delegate (08/13 - 12/13), Minister of Security (09/12 - 12/12), Minister of Foreign Affairs (05/12 - 09/12), Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 02/18 - Present).
Other: Current Founder of the puppet storage region "Niagara", former Founder of Richmond, former something in Europia... I think, former something in Balder... I think

"...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

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

TSP Forum & Discord Mod (4/19-Present)
Niagara Founder (2018-Present)

TSP MoRA (6/19-10/19)
TSP Asso. Justice (4/19-3/20)
TSP Deputy CoA (8/18 - 4/19)
TSP CSS (2/14-10/14)
TSP High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14)
TSP CoA (12/13 - 3/14)
TSP Vice Delegate (8/13 - 12/13)
TSP MoS (9/12 - 12/12)
TSP MoFA (5/12 - 9/12)
TSP Forum Admin (2014)
TSP Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 2/18 - 6/19)
Former Founder of Richmond
Former something in Europia
Former something in Balder

Quotes

5:19PM, 3/25/12
Hileville - LR and Rebel-topia are going to break the forum. 103 posts between the two of them so far today
LadyRebels - Yes we are implementing our evil plan to take over, just wanted ya'll to know that

---

[1:22 PM] Rebeltopia: *beats up the Polandar Bear*
[1:22 PM] Polandar Bear: :dizzy_face:
[1:23 PM] Polandar Bear: I'm endangered!
[1:23 PM] Rebeltopia: Endangered of being beated up!
[1:23 PM] Polander Bear: "Beated up" - Rebeltopia, 2018

---

[6:09 PM] Seraph: Who knew ORCS could be so informative?
[6:10 PM] Nakari: ORCS is truly ORChestral to our understanding of law.
[6:11 PM] Seraph: It's the ORCSue of all our legal knowledge.
[6:11 PM] Nakari: its magical. must have been created with sORCSery.

---

Nakarisaurus: islands are you just jealous of the boots
Roavin: islands is jealous of the entire package
Satan: ^ this
Islands of Unakarity: Im jealous of the wife, and that mora election a while back
Roavin: punnuendo both intended and not intended

(This post was last modified: 04-02-2019, 08:52 AM by Rebeltopia.)

Reply

Is it possible if both nominees put their CoI disclosure here?

I have a question that I like to ask both nominees:

What is your position on the issue of giving the High Court the power to make plea deals?

How will you ensure that your personal political views do not affect your decisions as Justice?

 

BZERNELEG 

 

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

  

Positions

Legislator (July 07, 2017 - December 14, 2017; January 05, 2018 - March 03, 2018; March 29, 2018 - October 8, 2019; January 9, 2020 - present)

Former Offices

Ambassador of The South Pacific to Hell (November 18, 2018 - October 8, 2019)

Ambassador of The South Pacific to The West Pacific (May 8, 2018 - November 16, 2018)

Deputy Chair of the Assembly (January 11, 2019 - March 7, 2019)

SPSF Trainee (April 01, 2018 - May 11, 2019)

Chair of the Assembly (March 7, 2019 - July 12, 2019)

Fellow of the Ministry of Regional Affairs (August 25, 2018 - July 17, 2019)

 

---

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

 

 

(This post was last modified: 04-02-2019, 12:07 AM by Bzerneleg.)

Reply

Is it possible if both nominees put their CoI disclosure here?

Ive amended my above post to include my COI.

What is your position on the issue of giving the High Court the power to make plea deals?

I dont think that it'd be a terrible idea, but Im not sure theres really a need for them, either. The Court could use the current mechanism written in law to make a more lenient sentence against the guilty without offering a reduced sentence before the verdict.

How will you ensure that your personal political views do not affect your decisions as Justice?

Im probably about as unpolitical as you can get in this game. But, when it comes to the law, Im fairly straight forward to the letter of the law. My rulings would reflect that, and, as I see it, are pretty in line with the current Court.

"...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

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

TSP Forum & Discord Mod (4/19-Present)
Niagara Founder (2018-Present)

TSP MoRA (6/19-10/19)
TSP Asso. Justice (4/19-3/20)
TSP Deputy CoA (8/18 - 4/19)
TSP CSS (2/14-10/14)
TSP High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14)
TSP CoA (12/13 - 3/14)
TSP Vice Delegate (8/13 - 12/13)
TSP MoS (9/12 - 12/12)
TSP MoFA (5/12 - 9/12)
TSP Forum Admin (2014)
TSP Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 2/18 - 6/19)
Former Founder of Richmond
Former something in Europia
Former something in Balder

Quotes

5:19PM, 3/25/12
Hileville - LR and Rebel-topia are going to break the forum. 103 posts between the two of them so far today
LadyRebels - Yes we are implementing our evil plan to take over, just wanted ya'll to know that

---

[1:22 PM] Rebeltopia: *beats up the Polandar Bear*
[1:22 PM] Polandar Bear: :dizzy_face:
[1:23 PM] Polandar Bear: I'm endangered!
[1:23 PM] Rebeltopia: Endangered of being beated up!
[1:23 PM] Polander Bear: "Beated up" - Rebeltopia, 2018

---

[6:09 PM] Seraph: Who knew ORCS could be so informative?
[6:10 PM] Nakari: ORCS is truly ORChestral to our understanding of law.
[6:11 PM] Seraph: It's the ORCSue of all our legal knowledge.
[6:11 PM] Nakari: its magical. must have been created with sORCSery.

---

Nakarisaurus: islands are you just jealous of the boots
Roavin: islands is jealous of the entire package
Satan: ^ this
Islands of Unakarity: Im jealous of the wife, and that mora election a while back
Roavin: punnuendo both intended and not intended

Reply

1. There have been minor discussions throughout the years about a Low Court. That idea has recently re-emerged due to concerns on the unusually heavy workload of the High Court. However, in my opinion, I am worried that the establishment of a Low Court would be excessive and overly bureaucratic. What are your views on creating a Low Court?


2. Do you personally believe that the High Court is subconsciously getting more political? If so, what do you think is the reason behind it and how do you plan on solving it? If not, could you please provide an explanation to your answer?


3. Do you agree with me that the High Court's recent errors regarding the judicial process, including the sentencing of Concrete Slab in New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Concrete Slab, are due to an unexpected surge in the workload of the Justices and a pressure on them to make fast but sloppy decisions?


4. Should candidates be given repercussions for unintentionally making a mistake on their Conflict of Interest disclosure?

 

BZERNELEG 

 

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

  

Positions

Legislator (July 07, 2017 - December 14, 2017; January 05, 2018 - March 03, 2018; March 29, 2018 - October 8, 2019; January 9, 2020 - present)

Former Offices

Ambassador of The South Pacific to Hell (November 18, 2018 - October 8, 2019)

Ambassador of The South Pacific to The West Pacific (May 8, 2018 - November 16, 2018)

Deputy Chair of the Assembly (January 11, 2019 - March 7, 2019)

SPSF Trainee (April 01, 2018 - May 11, 2019)

Chair of the Assembly (March 7, 2019 - July 12, 2019)

Fellow of the Ministry of Regional Affairs (August 25, 2018 - July 17, 2019)

 

---

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

 

 

Reply

Question for Roavin or Kris

It would seem that the mock cases contained more information than is provided in the applications posted above. Is it possible for the Assembly to receive a copy of the information in these mock cases? It would be most useful in determining the soundness of the candidate's decision-making.

Questions for Rebeltopia

Question 1

In your application, you stated that:

"A circumstance that customary, judicial precedent, and other sources of interpretation of the law would not be useful is when that information is [...] construed in a way that bastardizes the prior rulings or interpretations of the law."

Can you please elaborate on what bastardising prior rulings would look like?

Question 2

In your application, you stated that the Court should consider the following regarding probable cause:

"Has the accuser provided preliminary evidence in line with the law the accused has been accused of? Is there enough preliminary evidence to warrant a trial?"

Can you please elaborate on what standard of proof would result in there being enough preliminary evidence to warrant a trial?

Question 3

In your application, you stated that:

"Recusals should happen when a presiding Justice would have stock in the outcome of the case, or if said Justice has inside knowledge of or took part in anything that may come up in the ongoing case."

Should a Justice also recuse themselves if interested parties have a perception that there is a conflict of interest?

Questions for Awe

Question 1

In your application, you stated that:

"I believe the spirit of the law should be upheld over the letter of the law, unless it is apparent that the following the letter of the law will result in the most appropriate outcome in one's reading of the law."

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by the most appropriate outcome in one's reading of the law?

Question 2

In your application, you stated (regarding determining probable cause) that:

"The Court should consider the motivations behind the Petitioner's filing of such cases."

How would you approach a case which has factual merit but is presented for a nefarious reason? For example, if an election candidate sought to convict and ban their electoral opponent from office.

Question 3

In your application, you also stated (regarding determining probable cause) that:

"The Court should also consider whether circumstantial evidence, insofar as is available to the Court, merits the filing of criminal charges."

Can you please elaborate on what standard of proof merits the filing of criminal charges?

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

Question for Roavin or Kris

It would seem that the mock cases contained more information than is provided in the applications posted above. Is it possible for the Assembly to receive a copy of the information in these mock cases? It would be most useful in determining the soundness of the candidate's decision-making.

Apologies, here they are.

Appending of Titles

Question: "Does adding one's elected position to a statement make it an official statement?"
Date of Submission: 20 February 2019
Submitter: Steamland
Background:
Steamland is a regular poster on the Regional Message Board (RMB), known for their dark humour and somewhat crass language, though they generally make sure to stay on the right side of the rules. They are well-liked and have been posting on the RMB for a long time with few issues.

Veggie Basket is a Local Councillor who is also quite new to the region, having joined six months ago. They were elected on a platform of keeping the RMB active, but doing a better job at moderating and ensuring posting rules are properly observed. At that time there was an issue with foreigners posting recruitment messages, so few had issues with Basket's platform.

On January 15, Veggie Basket suppressed one of Steamland's posts, saying that it violated the RMB's posting guidelines. Steamland appealed the suppression, and another Local Councillor unsuppressed the post, agreeing that it was no different from the other jokes Steamland had told over the years.

What could have been a single incident escalated, and soon Steamland had several of their posts suppressed by Veggie Basket. Citizens started taking sides, either supporting Steamland's rights to free speech, or supporting Basket's attempts at stricter moderation.

The conflict came to a climax on February 18, when Basket made a post on the RMB where they suggested that Steamland would be ejected from the region, should they post any more jokes, regardless of their content or adherence to posting rules. Steamland was encouraged by various citizens and legislators to challenge this at the High Court, while others suggested that it might not be an official statement from the Local Council. In the end, Steamland decided to first ask if the statement itself could be considered "official".

Submission by Steamland:
Your Honour,
Earlier this week I was threatened by Local Councillor Veggie Basket. He said that "if you post more jokes, even a single one, you'll be gone from the region". I have been posting jokes on the RMB ever since I joined NS in 2014, and nobody has complained. The Charter says I have a right to free speech, and that includes making jokes on the RMB, even if Veggie Basket doesn't like them.
I was told to sue Basket for corruption, but first I want to know if their statement is an official statement by a Local Councillor. Basket started his statement by saying it was "From the Office of Local Councillor Veggie Basket", but I'm not sure if that's enough. Does adding one's elected position to a statement make it an official statement?

Response by Veggie Basket:
Your Honour,
This is obviously a waste of your time on Steamland's part. This question isn't justiciable, and even if it was, I add that "From the Office..." part to all my RMB posts, when they aren't part of an ongoing conversation. Just because I do that doesn't mean that I should be blamed for saying my mind. I also have a right to free speech. I respectfully ask you to dismiss this question.

February 18 Statement by Veggie Basket:
**From the Office of Local Councillor Veggie Basket**
I am so done with Steamland and his jokes. He doesn't get a free reign from me just because the LC is too scared to make people angry. He's breaking the rules and having his minions attack me for doing my job. I won't have it. If you want to make your own rules, run for LC next time and make them! If you can, because I swear if you post more jokes, even a single one, you'll be gone from the region before I've even had my morning SPIT.

Organa v. Palpatine

Charge: "I contend that Prime Minister Palpatine has committed treason, by attempting to dissolve the Coalition without the consent of the Assembly."
Date of Submission: 20 February 2019
Submitter: Bail Organa
Background:
Palpatine is the incumbent Prime Minister, a very popular politician serving his fifth term. He started as a very active legislator, before being named Cabinet Intern and then being elected Minister of Foreign Affairs. While he admitted to not knowing much about the field, he proved to be exceptionally skilled at fast learning and improvisation, and he came to be seen as one of the best Foreign Ministers in recent times, reviving several alliances and securing close ties with smaller but active regions.

He was elected Prime Minister shortly after, on a platform of making the position more effective at leading the regional agenda. On his second term, one of the region's closest allies was revealed to be secretly aligned with an opposing faction, the alliance turning out to be merely a deception to infiltrate the South Pacific. Palpatine immediately had the Assembly vote on dissolving the alliance and declaring war on the entire opposing faction.

Palpatine ran for a third term on a platform of keeping the Coalition safe, a claim that was validated when his government caught several spies trying to become legislators. While this happened, the Charter was repeatedly amended to give more powers to the Prime Minister: appointing and dismissing Ministers, nominating the candidates for Delegate, bringing matters to vote without debate times, motions or seconds, among others.

By his fifth term, Palpatine had a firm grasp over the region, and had overwhelming support in the Assembly. His only significant opposition came from the Old Guard, a party led by Bail Organa and consisting of veteran members who joined in the 2013-2016 period. They were very vocal in their concern that Palpatine was slowly becoming a dictator and destroying the Coalition's democratic foundations.

On February 20, Palpatine posted a thread in the Assembly, where he announced the dissolution of the Coalition and introduced a Charter amendment to effect that change and to combine the offices of Delegate and Prime Minister into that of Emperor, with an indefinite term of office. Using his prerogative as Prime Minister, he forced a vote on the matter. It is expected to narrowly pass, despite the Old Guard's best efforts.

Organa immediately claimed that Palpatine had committed treason, by declaring the dissolution of the Coalition without a prior vote by the Assembly, and vowed to file a criminal complaint before the High Court, whose powers remain virtually untouched, despite the wide-ranging reforms to other government institutions.

Submission by Bail Organa:
Your Honour,
I come before you to charge Prime Minister Palpatine with treason. In today's declaration before the Assembly, the Prime Minister declared the dissolution of the Coalition and promised to establish in its place a new government. For your convenience, I quote the definition of treason under the Criminal Code:

"Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the Delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity against which a state of war exists."

I believe that dissolving the Coalition should count under "plotting against the Coalition". The Prime Minister doesn't have the power to dissolve the Coalition, as much as he wishes he did. Until the Assembly votes on his amendment, he can't go around saying that the Coalition has been dissolved. I contend that Prime Minister Palpatine has committed treason, by attempting to dissolve the Coalition without the consent of the Assembly.

I ask you to take this case and rule that Palpatine has committed treason, and should be permanently banned from the region for this transgression.

Response by Palpatine's Counsel:
Your Honour,
This is a very simple case, with a very simple answer. You should dismiss this case, because there is no probable cause that my client committed treason. He simply made a statement: "it is time to dissolve the Coalition". He then announced a course of action: he would introduce an amendment to make that happen. Can the complainant explain to me how does that qualify as plotting against the Coalition?

My client has a right to free speech. He exercised that right when he gave his opinion that it was time to dissolve the Coalition. That's not a crime, and I hope the Court is wise enough to understand that.

February 20 Declaration by Prime Minister Palpatine:
My Friends,

I come before you with great news of change, of welcome and overdue renewal for our region.

Over the past sixteen months, with my leadership and your support, we have accomplished a great many things. We have turned the region from an inactive husk into one of the most vibrant and ambitious regional communities in NationStates. We have developed our institutions to inspire respect and admiration throughout Gameplay: none dares challenge our Special Forces, and none even hopes to surpass our Ministry of Regional Affairs.

We have been betrayed, but we picked ourselves up and retaliated, taking the fight to those who tried to damage us. With your support, we have all but defeated the United Federation and proven to Gameplay that we are no longer the timid region of old, but a community that stands proud and capable of defending itself, its people and its values. I assure you, not even half would've been possible had you not supported our initiatives, including the strengthening of the Prime Minister's Office.

A month ago we finally brought the war to an end. We should thank our Special Forces for that. Their hard work made all the difference, as they followed our enemies wherever they went, to make sure that they never forgot the damage they did to us. We should also thank our Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Regional Affairs, who made us many new allies, whose support was key in turning the tides of the war.

The truth is we have an amazing regional community, stronger now than we have ever been, but now it's time to go even further, and ensure that our democracy becomes even stronger, but also safer. It is time to dissolve the Coalition, to overcome this system that is no longer adequate for our region, and to create something new. In the coming hours I will submit a Charter amendment that will formally dissolve the Coalition, and in its place establish a government led by an Emperor who, with the combined strength of the offices of Delegate and Prime Minister, will ensure that we continue being the strong, safe and vibrant regional community that we are.

I ask you to join me on this journey.

Reply

1. There have been minor discussions throughout the years about a Low Court. That idea has recently re-emerged due to concerns on the unusually heavy workload of the High Court. However, in my opinion, I am worried that the establishment of a Low Court would be excessive and overly bureaucratic. What are your views on creating a Low Court?

I dont really see a need for a lower court because we're (tentatively) adding 2 more justices to the pool. With a rotation of 4 justices, Even a larger case load - like we have now - shouldn't be any issue.
 

2. Do you personally believe that the High Court is subconsciously getting more political? If so, what do you think is the reason behind it and how do you plan on solving it? If not, could you please provide an explanation to your answer?

Youre playing a political game. There's no way that you're going to get a 100% apolitical anything. The Court is, though, as apolitical as it can get. I dont think its anywhere near a level to be concerned about. I havent seen an unfair verdict by the Court that could be remotely tied to the Court being overly political.
 

3. Do you agree with me that the High Court's recent errors regarding the judicial process, including the sentencing of Concrete Slab in New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Concrete Slab, are due to an unexpected surge in the workload of the Justices and a pressure on them to make fast but sloppy decisions?

I think the current issues within the court revolve around the high workload for the two justices. Kris has made it clear on Discord that he's pretty burned out, and, as far as Im aware, we havent seen much of Bel lately in his judicial capacity. I think 4 justices will help keep the workload lighter per justice, leading to less burnout and more "fun" cases.
 

4. Should candidates be given repercussions for unintentionally making a mistake on their Conflict of Interest disclosure?

In my citizen/Legislator capacity... I dont think so. Which is why I think a subforum for Legislators to post a CoI report where it can be updated as needed would be a great idea! But every time its brought up, its bypassed.
The tough part would be proving that the "mistake" was or was not "unintentional"...
 

---

PS: I see you, Nat. I'll get to your questions shortly.

"...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

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

TSP Forum & Discord Mod (4/19-Present)
Niagara Founder (2018-Present)

TSP MoRA (6/19-10/19)
TSP Asso. Justice (4/19-3/20)
TSP Deputy CoA (8/18 - 4/19)
TSP CSS (2/14-10/14)
TSP High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14)
TSP CoA (12/13 - 3/14)
TSP Vice Delegate (8/13 - 12/13)
TSP MoS (9/12 - 12/12)
TSP MoFA (5/12 - 9/12)
TSP Forum Admin (2014)
TSP Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 2/18 - 6/19)
Former Founder of Richmond
Former something in Europia
Former something in Balder

Quotes

5:19PM, 3/25/12
Hileville - LR and Rebel-topia are going to break the forum. 103 posts between the two of them so far today
LadyRebels - Yes we are implementing our evil plan to take over, just wanted ya'll to know that

---

[1:22 PM] Rebeltopia: *beats up the Polandar Bear*
[1:22 PM] Polandar Bear: :dizzy_face:
[1:23 PM] Polandar Bear: I'm endangered!
[1:23 PM] Rebeltopia: Endangered of being beated up!
[1:23 PM] Polander Bear: "Beated up" - Rebeltopia, 2018

---

[6:09 PM] Seraph: Who knew ORCS could be so informative?
[6:10 PM] Nakari: ORCS is truly ORChestral to our understanding of law.
[6:11 PM] Seraph: It's the ORCSue of all our legal knowledge.
[6:11 PM] Nakari: its magical. must have been created with sORCSery.

---

Nakarisaurus: islands are you just jealous of the boots
Roavin: islands is jealous of the entire package
Satan: ^ this
Islands of Unakarity: Im jealous of the wife, and that mora election a while back
Roavin: punnuendo both intended and not intended

(This post was last modified: 04-03-2019, 10:22 AM by Rebeltopia.)

Reply

Questions for Rebeltopia
Question 1
In your application, you stated that:

"A circumstance that customary, judicial precedent, and other sources of interpretation of the law would not be useful is when that information is [...] construed in a way that bastardizes the prior rulings or interpretations of the law."

Can you please elaborate on what bastardising prior rulings would look like?

The prior ruling is bastardized when parts and pieces of the ruling are taken/quoted to suite the person quoting, but the parts and pieces, and the way they are presented, change the actual meaning of the ruling.

 

Question 2

In your application, you stated that the Court should consider the following regarding probable cause:

"Has the accuser provided preliminary evidence in line with the law the accused has been accused of? Is there enough preliminary evidence to warrant a trial?"

Can you please elaborate on what standard of proof would result in there being enough preliminary evidence to warrant a trial?

Preliminary evidence should, in the very least, lay out basic evidence in line with the crime. Like in my answer to the "Organa v. Palpatine" faux case, in my opinion, there wasnt enough preliminary evidence to prove that an actual crime had occurred (without actually going through a trial of arguments, its tough to work on the faux cases like that).


 

Question 3

In your application, you stated that:

"Recusals should happen when a presiding Justice would have stock in the outcome of the case, or if said Justice has inside knowledge of or took part in anything that may come up in the ongoing case."

Should a Justice also recuse themselves if interested parties have a perception that there is a conflict of interest?

Not always. The court should take control of the situation and decide if the arguments for recusal are valid, or if the interested party is trying to get another justice who may be more favorable to them. Its a tactic we've seen before, and we shouldnt let the politics of which justice may be more favorable in a specific trial get in the way of the actual trial. But, there are times where the argument for recusal may be valid, and at this point in time, the justice should recuse.

"...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

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

TSP Forum & Discord Mod (4/19-Present)
Niagara Founder (2018-Present)

TSP MoRA (6/19-10/19)
TSP Asso. Justice (4/19-3/20)
TSP Deputy CoA (8/18 - 4/19)
TSP CSS (2/14-10/14)
TSP High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14)
TSP CoA (12/13 - 3/14)
TSP Vice Delegate (8/13 - 12/13)
TSP MoS (9/12 - 12/12)
TSP MoFA (5/12 - 9/12)
TSP Forum Admin (2014)
TSP Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 2/18 - 6/19)
Former Founder of Richmond
Former something in Europia
Former something in Balder

Quotes

5:19PM, 3/25/12
Hileville - LR and Rebel-topia are going to break the forum. 103 posts between the two of them so far today
LadyRebels - Yes we are implementing our evil plan to take over, just wanted ya'll to know that

---

[1:22 PM] Rebeltopia: *beats up the Polandar Bear*
[1:22 PM] Polandar Bear: :dizzy_face:
[1:23 PM] Polandar Bear: I'm endangered!
[1:23 PM] Rebeltopia: Endangered of being beated up!
[1:23 PM] Polander Bear: "Beated up" - Rebeltopia, 2018

---

[6:09 PM] Seraph: Who knew ORCS could be so informative?
[6:10 PM] Nakari: ORCS is truly ORChestral to our understanding of law.
[6:11 PM] Seraph: It's the ORCSue of all our legal knowledge.
[6:11 PM] Nakari: its magical. must have been created with sORCSery.

---

Nakarisaurus: islands are you just jealous of the boots
Roavin: islands is jealous of the entire package
Satan: ^ this
Islands of Unakarity: Im jealous of the wife, and that mora election a while back
Roavin: punnuendo both intended and not intended

Reply

I have no idea why either of them would want to do this horrible and thankless job, but Rebs and Awe will both be okay at it. Awe was overly inclined to make things up on the basis of whatever he felt was the “spirit” of the law, but maybe that’s what is needed currently.

_{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