I wasn't planning to make a run for any office for a while yet. I believe the feeling and atmosphere in TSP towards the Court is similar to that of TNP when I ran for Chief Justice there. I know I can help guide the way to building a strong and unbiased Court which will gain the trust of the people.

I want to address some of the things that most certainly will come up in this campaign or in news articles that circulate in GP.

Forum Debacle:
Well this is one that I seriously regret some of the decisions that were made. I had a vision of where I wanted the forum to go and how to get there but I did a terrible job at explaining that. For quite sometime leading up to the removal of the majority of the admin team frustration was rising. I seemed to be the only one doing any thing and looking back on it that was my fault. I didn't do a great job with delegating tasks. I had a faulty belief that if I didn't do it nobody would or it wouldn't get done the way I wanted it. To add to that Bel and I had been squaring off against each other for whatever reason (I honestly don't remember what caused it) and I was starting a new and very stressful job IRL. I do wish I hadn't pulled the plug and tried harder to work towards solving the issues that existed. My biggest regret here was taking the form down before what Escade and I agreed on. For that I apologize to each of you that were here for it.

Elections:
My beliefs here haven't changed. I still believe my actions were not only legal but just. When a Citizen no longer meets citizenship requirements they are no longer a citizen and the Election Commissioner no matter who it is should preserve the sanctity of the vote. I shouldn't have withdrew my legal question as it was still valid. But I expect that the dozen or so others will handle that on its own. If the Court rules I did not have the ability to ensure all votes wee made by citizens I will be the first to say I was wrong even if I don't agree with the outcome.

We need to have trust in the Court and allow them the opportunity to make a sound ruling on whatever matter is before them. I am a firm believer in trust being earned. It will take some time to get there but I hope to be given the opportunity to be a part of it.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. I will not comment on any open matter before the Courts except those directly relating to he elections as I will recuse myself from them if they should still be open.

Note: I am sorry in advance if this is poorly spelled or formatted. I wrote it on my phone while traveling home from Florida.

While I acknowledge that you cannot comment on the specifics of current cases, I do have an interest in knowing, in general terms, what are your views on resolving legal questions wherein the problem is not a conflict between laws, but rather the absence or ambiguity of laws?

In some cases the Court has referred the matter to the Assembly and in other cases it has tried to answer the question based on its own legal judgement. How would you as a Justice approach such issues?

It really depends on the issue. I typically would favor a ruling which provides guidance but may send the issue to the Assembly. In TNP there were a couple of rulings that the Court explained the issue, provided guidance and a possible resolution but sent it to the legislature for a better definition.

A lot goes into that though. The Court must balance what is and is not acceptable. I don't like legislating from the bench and wouldn't support a ruling if I believed that to be the outcome.

I always would weigh the ruling on whether or not it would create law or define law. My job as a Justice would be to clarify existing law and not create new laws while doing so.

Usually Justices end up having a clear understanding on which areas our laws are lacking or have high degree of ambiguity. However, you have already drafted or had an important role in drafting many of our laws. Is there a particular area that you believe could be better defined, maybe something that could prove difficult to rule on?

Yes there are several that come to mind but I will have to take another look through the outstanding Court matters to ensure I don't bring something up that is still pending.

EDIT: Since I would be recusing myself if elected and this matter is still outstanding I am going to say the current Legal Question by Escade on Citizenship. The law is very vague and the difficult part of the ruling will be defining "will be" as well as determining how their ruling will impact all past votes/elections. This is a situation where if I were handling it I would stick to a pretty straightforward interpretation of what is written. Then send it back to the Assembly for further discussion/deliberation.

I didn't want to bring up a couple of areas as these will potentially become legal issues that I would then have to recuse myself from.

The Court system in TSP has been at the crux of several controversies, not limited to the current term, but stemming back to 2013 when judicial reform was proposed several times. These former judicial reform attempts were largely a failure and so we still are struggling to establish, as a region, what the role of the Courts in TSP should be.

1. What do you think the role of the Courts in TSP should be?

a. If, ideally, the courts should balance the powers afforded to the Assembly and Cabinet – do you agree or disagree – how can the Courts establish their role in a three branch system? What specific domains of power and responsibility should be under the jurisdiction of the courts? It seems that many issues fall to the Assembly that could also fall to the courts area of power? How can checks and balances be maintained?

b. On the other hand many regions, outside of TSP including major GCRs, have argued that the Courts in NS cannot operate as they do in real life and that most such attempts to correlate the NS court system with RL systems has resulted in failure. What do you think about this assertion made by prominent NSers? What then should the role of the courts be?

2. What kind of behavior is acceptable for a court justice? From the outgoing justices, one has allegedly shared IRC log conversations with one group of people with their political opposition during the recent elections, is that kind of partisan behavior acceptable for a court justice? How can the Justices be seen as figures of authority and utter trustworthiness if they allow politics to influence their decisions and indeed may take actions to benefit their political allies?

3. Should the Justices have a longer term? Would that help stabilize the judiciary? Or would that entrench power?

4. How can Justices be held accountable to TSP for their decisions?

5. What is one major issue that the court has been faced with recently that you would handle differently or the same (or in the case of them having not yet answered, how would you respond)?

(04-02-2015, 04:22 PM)Escade Wrote: 1. What do you think the role of the Courts in TSP should be?

a. If, ideally, the courts should balance the powers afforded to the Assembly and Cabinet – do you agree or disagree – how can the Courts establish their role in a three branch system? What specific domains of power and responsibility should be under the jurisdiction of the courts? It seems that many issues fall to the Assembly that could also fall to the courts area of power? How can checks and balances be maintained?

b. On the other hand many regions, outside of TSP including major GCRs, have argued that the Courts in NS cannot operate as they do in real life and that most such attempts to correlate the NS court system with RL systems has resulted in failure. What do you think about this assertion made by prominent NSers? What then should the role of the courts be?

A. The Court should handle all legal questions as well as any trials. It interprets the law. This probably seems like a short and broad answer but it is and usually will be. I don't know what the answer is for a complete balancing of powers in TSP. I share your belief that this needs to be worked on but cannot really give concrete examples of what would make sense. I will say that traditionally TSP's Assembly has been the ultimate power and has always held the most power. This was partly due to the fact that we didn't have an actual Court. We had a Ministry of Justice which was a part of the Cabinet. That has changed but I don't believe we ever really looked at how that should change other areas of our System.

B. I don't believe that to be the case. Most of the time the Court is not allowed to behave as it should across NS. People don't have the patience nor the desire to hold off and let the Court do its job. It is also much easier in NS to change laws that the Court has ruled on when people don't like their ruling. I personally believe that you will never find a FAIR and balanced Court that doesn't somewhat mimic RL. We could have a very effective Court if we were a dictatorship but we aren't.

(04-02-2015, 04:22 PM)Escade Wrote: 2. What kind of behavior is acceptable for a court justice? From the outgoing justices, one has allegedly shared IRC log conversations with one group of people with their political opposition during the recent elections, is that kind of partisan behavior acceptable for a court justice? How can the Justices be seen as figures of authority and utter trustworthiness if they allow politics to influence their decisions and indeed may take actions to benefit their political allies?

This NS and people need to remember that. We cannot disallow members of the Court to act politically. However, there should be a reasonable limits to it. Ultimately a Justice needs to be able to put the Politics aside when performing their duties. As long as they can do that I have no problem with a Justice also being involved in the Politics of the region.

(04-02-2015, 04:22 PM)Escade Wrote: 3. Should the Justices have a longer term? Would that help stabilize the judiciary? Or would that entrench power?

I know we briefly discussed this last night. I wouldn't extend the term beyond 6 months. I don't know if that is actually needed though. With that you can run into activity issues and then possibly a power high.

(04-02-2015, 04:22 PM)Escade Wrote: 4. How can Justices be held accountable to TSP for their decisions?

Well this is done in 2 ways. The first being Election Time. If you don't like how a Justice performed their duties then don't vote for them. The second would be recall procedures which should be reserved to the gravest of events. I'm not sure we have to have any other way.

(04-02-2015, 04:22 PM)Escade Wrote: 5. What is one major issue that the court has been faced with recently that you would handle differently or the same (or in the case of them having not yet answered, how would you respond)?

I would prefer not to answer this as doing so could harm my ability to act as a Justice if elected.

Given that a few of the current cases the court is hearing were precipitated by your own legally dubious actions, will you recuse yourself from these cases and any potential appeals?

(04-01-2015, 09:49 PM)Hileville Wrote: I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. I will not comment on any open matter before the Courts except those directly relating to he elections as I will recuse myself from them if they should still be open.

I already answered that in my campaign. You can call my actions whatever you want and the answer won't change.

And the appeals, should any be submitted? I think we need to be very thorough here, as appeals are likely and if you're elected we will probably have to appoint an acting Justice.