Additionally, I have some serious concerns about his activity. He's frequently had to leave for extended periods of time, for real-life professional reasons. And the last court case was delayed several times to accommodate him.

I think this is a very fair question to raise, as I don't work a regular "nine to five" job with set hours - and as some people here are aware my schedule has just become even more hectic.

That said, I wouldn't have allowed my name to go forward for this if I didn't believe I could do the job. If it turns out that I can't find the time to do it properly I will resign.
 

So long as Bel won't run for another position I'd be happy to support the nomination.

I have no intention of running for an elected position in TSP or NS in the near future, at least not as a serious candidate. I reserve the right to submit a farcical campaign for my own amusement.

_{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: 05-06-2018, 03:22 PM by Belschaft.)

Reply

True, but that could happen to me or you as well. I would expect, as common courtesy to fellow players, that taking a leave is announced. If Bel were in the middle of a court case and unexpectedly had to disappear, there's nothing prohibiting the High Court from reassigning the case otherwise.

As Belschaft pointed out himself, his RL political career leads to extended absences. That's not actually something that could happen to many other people-- I do work a regular 40-hour workweek. Availability is a genuine concern for the court, because it has been an incredibly slow institution thanks in large part to availability issues. It could very well become a liability for the court if the UK, say, goes into a snap election and Bel has to leave for weeks.

We're under no such illusion! The new Judicial Act was purposefully designed to allow political players to participate in the court. What we expect of Justices is to put aside political views and ambitions when they step onto the Bench to make a ruling. Part of the selection process includes gauging whether we have the confidence that any such nominee would do so, and that was considered here as well. And finally, even if that were to break down, the new Judicial Act compels the court to check itself by requiring that another justice signs off on a pending opinion.

I'm actually not so sure the Cabinet and Chief Justice aren't under any illusions. To be fair, you posted an unbelievably rosy recommendation for a political player that has been at the center of controversies for years. And it wasn't mentioned? The availability issues that we're all aware of also weren't mentioned? That's why I said that the Assembly is getting a PR-approved message and not the full picture of the deliberations. It's hard to believe that the Cabinet and Chief Justice didn't discuss the political controversies, or time issues, or previous criminal accusations (and, to that end, confessions).

That's very concerning to me. Belschaft does have a history that raises significant questions about his appointment to the court. He has, at various times, said he bends the law outside of its intended meaning. He's said in the past that he's written laws in such ways so he could abuse them. Operation Brave Toaster raises concerns about fidelity to the rule of law, which directly contradicts the statement that he "[displays] an impressive command of ... the role of the judiciary within the Coalition." The extent to which he was involved in Hileville's coup has never been fully understood, but we know that shady things were going on. Additionally, prior to that coup, when he was prohibited from being a legislator, he openly committed identity fraud by posing as a female player in order to get elected to the Local Council.

None of that is anything the Cabinet and Chief Justice thought to mention and make a case for why he should still be appointed to the High Court? That's implausible. And it kind of insults the Assembly that we only got a 99-word paragraph, half of which consisted of references to answers to interview questions that weren't posted.

Reply

True, but that could happen to me or you as well. I would expect, as common courtesy to fellow players, that taking a leave is announced. If Bel were in the middle of a court case and unexpectedly had to disappear, there's nothing prohibiting the High Court from reassigning the case otherwise.

As Belschaft pointed out himself, his RL political career leads to extended absences. That's not actually something that could happen to many other people-- I do work a regular 40-hour workweek. Availability is a genuine concern for the court, because it has been an incredibly slow institution thanks in large part to availability issues. It could very well become a liability for the court if the UK, say, goes into a snap election and Bel has to leave for weeks.

That's a fair criticism. I'll note that we have essentially dropped another potential nominee for time issues and yet have not dropped Belschaft. And for the rest, I'll refer you to Bel's somber answer on the issue!

I'm actually not so sure the Cabinet and Chief Justice aren't under any illusions. To be fair, you posted an unbelievably rosy recommendation for a political player that has been at the center of controversies for years. And it wasn't mentioned? The availability issues that we're all aware of also weren't mentioned? That's why I said that the Assembly is getting a PR-approved message and not the full picture of the deliberations. It's hard to believe that the Cabinet and Chief Justice didn't discuss the political controversies, or time issues, or previous criminal accusations (and, to that end, confessions).

That's very concerning to me. Belschaft does have a history that raises significant questions about his appointment to the court. He has, at various times, said he bends the law outside of its intended meaning. He's said in the past that he's written laws in such ways so he could abuse them. Operation Brave Toaster raises concerns about fidelity to the rule of law, which directly contradicts the statement that he "[displays] an impressive command of ... the role of the judiciary within the Coalition." The extent to which he was involved in Hileville's coup has never been fully understood, but we know that shady things were going on. Additionally, prior to that coup, when he was prohibited from being a legislator, he openly committed identity fraud by posing as a female player in order to get elected to the Local Council.

None of that is anything the Cabinet and Chief Justice thought to mention and make a case for why he should still be appointed to the High Court? That's implausible. And it kind of insults the Assembly that we only got a 99-word paragraph, half of which consisted of references to answers to interview questions that weren't posted.

I think it's very fair to criticize the statement. It should have been much more detailed, and that's my fault and not anybody else's, and I do apologize to the Assembly for it.

To address your points, however - yes, Bel does have questionable history and that was a topic of discussion, including his role in OBT (which you didn't mention, but was the reason for the banishment you mentioned). What outweighed that history, however, was the obvious qualifications based on prior experience and the demonstrated mock examples, the checks we have in place to prevent a justice gone rogue (sign-off, appeals based on misconduct), and the general demeanor that Belschaft has displayed.

I'll post the questions and answers in a moment.

Reply

Answers that Belschaft provided to Cabinet and High Court

General Information

What is your forum username?
Belschaft

Are you interested in serving as Associate Justice of the High Court
Yes

If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, why do you want to serve as Associate Justice?
I lack the spare time for a major government role in TSP these days, but I still enjoy spending time in the region and like contributing. Considering the lower time requirements of the judicial branch, my own expertise and experience in such, and the fact that I regularly end up as Kris' "sounding board" anyway it makes sense for me to serve as an AJ.

Do you currently hold any office or position under the Coalition that is subject to election, appointment or confirmation?
No

If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, which offices do you currently hold?



Do you have any judicial or legal experience, either in the South Pacific, in other regions or in your real life? [In the South Pacific]
Yes

Do you have any judicial or legal experience, either in the South Pacific, in other regions or in your real life? [In other regions]
Yes

Do you have any judicial or legal experience, either in the South Pacific, in other regions or in your real life? [In real life]
Yes

If you selected "Yes" in any part of the previous question, please detail your experience.
In the South Pacific I have served in the judicial branch on multiple occasions, as a Court Justice, Alternate Justice and Chief Justice. I have also been involved in numerous Legal Questions - both as petitioner and amicus curiae - and criminal cases.

In TNP I have served as a Court Justice and as Deputy Attorney General.

In Lazarus I was the inaugural Chief Justice of the Celestial Union, having been brought into the region to advise on and establish a judicial system for them.

In real life I have a background in mooting at University, and a general interest in the law as a pastime/hobby.

On a professional basis I deal with the legal issues of liability and indemnity as a layperson.

I am currently receiving professional training to conduct quasi-judicial hearings, in preparation for a new position I will likely assume in May.

In which of the following areas do you have significant experience or interest?
Legislative Drafting and Debate;Foreign Policy;Judicial Affairs and Legal Advocacy;Military Gameplay

Judicial Philosophy

What roles do the letter and the spirit of the law have in judicial interpretation, and with respect to each other?
I favour the English model of statutory interpretation, based upon the "three rules"; The Literal Rule, The Golden Rule and The Mischief Rule.

To quote Lord Wensleygale (Grey v Pealson, 1857) - “The literal rule should be used first, but if it results in absurdity, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid absurdity and inconsistency, but no further.”

It is only when a literal interpretation of the written law produces an absurdity that the court should look beyond the common or plain meaning; at this point it is the duty of the court to look at the intent and actions of the legislature when adopting the law in question, to identify what "mischief" they sort to correct and what remedy they sort to implement.

It is thus the duty of the court to create an interpretation of the law that, if possible;

1. Is true to the wording of the law
2. Produces no absurdity
3. Aligns with the intent of the legislature

An interpretation of the law that is true to the literal wording, but is absurd or contrary to the intent of the legislature would not be correct. An interpretation of the law that substitutes an uncommon meaning of the wording but in doing so avoids absurdity and aligns with the intent of the legislature would be correct.

It is never in the purview of the court to alter the wording of the law; should no uncommon meaning that resolves the absurdity and complies with the intent of the legislature be possible, then the court must nullify the law and refer the matter to the legislature.

To what extent should the way in which a law is customarily implemented inform the interpretation of said law by a judge?
Custom can be indicative of how a law functions in practice, and to that extent provides information worthy of consideration, but should have no legal bearing in of itself. Custom can be both good and bad; should a good custom be considered binding or otherwise to carry legal weight then so too would a bad custom.

Where there are multiple possible valid interpretations of the law the court should look to custom; if one of these interpretations aligns with custom, then this is the correct one. If custom does not align with a valid interpretation then custom is wrong; correcting such is a core duty of the court, being the primary function of legal questions.

To what extent should prior rulings bind or guide the decision of cases? What is the important of judicial precedent in informing ongoing cases?
Precedent should always be considered when reaching decisions; court rulings must be consistent, objective and fair. It is improper for two cases addressing the same issue to be resolved differently. As such I consider precedent binding where;

1. The facts of the case are materially similar
2. The law in question has not been changed and/or altered in such a way that would would render the prior ruling invalid

Where the law has been changed precedent can no longer be considered binding; however, it is always worthy as a guide when considering the matter. Where possible a new ruling should broadly align with a past ruling, even if precedent no longer is binding. The exception to this would be where the law has changed in such a manner that the prior ruling is no longer relevant or applicable; for example, if the intent of the law had been substantially changed since the precedent was established.

Under what circumstances would custom, judicial precedent and other related sources not be useful as a means of informing a judge?
To quote Jefferson; “The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two
words when one will do."


I believe I have adequately addressed this above, and see no need to repeat myself. If you believe otherwise please inform me and I can go into more detail.[/box]

What is the importance of amicus curiae briefs, testimonies and oral argument in the handling and consideration of cases?
The principle value I find in all three of these is that of revealing and illuminating facts not otherwise considered; it is likely that both petitioner and judge may be unaware of some point of information or precedent that is relevant to the case, or there may be expert knowledge not possessed by either party. This is particularly the case when judging intent, as in TSP we often have those responsible for drafting a law present and able to provide expert testimony on the subject.

The debate and discussion that an informed brief can prompt is often of use as well; both in identifying the true matter of contention and the specific wording that lacks clarity, and in pitting opposing interpretations of the law against each other and weighing their merits. I will refer you to several past cases where Glen and myself have submitted brief and counter-briefs, showing two different ways of interpreting the law whilst also identifying points of agreement.

It is also possible for a curiae to produce a compelling legal argument that I agree with entirely; whilst this is not common, it has occurred in the past.

What considerations should be taken into account when determining the justiciability of a case?
These vary somewhat between Legal Questions and Criminal Accusations, but broadly speaking;

1. Has the petitioner/accuser demonstrated that harm has/will occurred. In criminal matters this needs to be something indicating that a crime has occurred - not just a vague accusation, but a specific criminal act with associated evidence to justify proceeding. In legal questions this would be a specific section of the law, or the interpretation/application of the law by a government official/body, that has or could have a detrimental effect. I would not consider a legal question justiciable on the basis of "what does X mean?"; I would require "is the implementation of X by Y in circumstance Z illegal?" or something similar.

1b. I would consider, but on a more limited basis "speculative" legal questions; whilst in general I would not hear a legal question about something that has not occurred, I can see an argument for a legal question querying the implications of an action or law. For example, if the Cabinet was granted a new range of powers by a security law I would be willing to consider a legal question on whether or not these powers were in compliance with the bill of rights *before* any attempt had been made to use them in the suggested manner. The logic behind this is that if such powers are/were granted, it would be with the clear intent to use them at some point. I am of the view that actual harm does not need to have occurred for a legal question to be justiciable, so long as it is sufficiently probable that such harm could/would occur. I do not believe that this matter is one where a "rule" can be established that holds in all cases; I would essentially consider this on an individual basis, looking at the specific law in question and it's intent/likely usage.

2. Has sufficient evidence been submitted by the petitioner to suggest that this matter can be brought to conclusion. This does not need to be "all" evidence, but enough to suggest that a full hearing is appropriate and that it could be brought to conclusion. I would not consider a criminal case justiciable if it had limited chance of being brought to conclusion due to lack of evidence.

3. Has this matter been addressed in a prior case; where there is a relevant precedential ruling that remains valid I would not consider a matter justiciable.

4. Does the question/case make sense? - An absurd or incomprehensible question/accusation would not be accepted. My preference is for clear and plain English, with a minimum of jargon or attempts to play lawyer. Where appropriate technical terminology is necessary, but this is NS not a Crown Court.

5. Does the question/case make specific reference to the law? Questions about generalities or abstract principles are never justicable. The court may only rule on the law and the application of such; concepts such as "natural justice" are irrelevant.

What considerations should be taken into account when deciding if a recusal from a case is appropriate?
Recusal should occur when;

1. The justice has substantial conflict of interest that would impair their ability to consider the matter fairly ie; membership of a group relevant to the matter

2. The justice has a significant personal relationship, beyond the norm in NS, with a party involved that would impair their ability to consider the matter fairly ie; particularly close friendship or unusual antagonism (ie; myself/Imki or myself/Unibot)

3. The perception of bias or conflict of interest, even if not real, would bring the court and its rulings into question

Recusal is not necessary in matters of prior opinion or prior knowledge.

Where the justice and/or court is unsure of whether or not a recusal is necessary they should ere on the side of caution, and at least make public the potential CoI and offer the parties involved in the case the chance to request such.

What relative importance would you ascribe to expediency and thoroughness, respectively, when considering cases and drafting rulings?
I do not believe expediency has any place in judicial matters. The purpose of the court is to thoroughly consider the matter in question and come to a comprehensive conclusion that resolves the legal issues in question. An approach that favours “being convenient and practical despite possibly being improper or immoral” is antithetical to justice.

How important is it to explain within a ruling the legal, customary, and other arguments and considerations that contributed towards the decision?
I consider it best practice to discuss in some detail all the arguments raised by the case, and the considerations that let to the court's decision. I would consider it essential to discuss the legal arguments; where the matter is resolved without having to consider the customary issues and/or intent involved (ie; where the Literal Rule is sufficient) discussing these would be less important. Should the ruling run contrary to the historical or customary interpretation of the law, I would consider explaining the reasons why this interpretation was incorrect of paramount importance.

Role of the Judiciary

What role does the Court have with respect to keeping the balance of power between the three branches of government?
The court should act to maintain the separation of powers, and thus jealously guard those powers granted to it by the law, whilst not infringing on the powers of the Legislative and Executive branches. The court does not have the ability to enforce principles - nor should it. The court has a duty to respect and maintain balance of powers because they are founded in law.

What role should judges have in regional, political and governmental life?
There is no reason why judges should not be fully involved in all aspects of the region, so long as they consider and declare all conflicts of interests. NS and TSP is not a large enough community to have the separation that would be expected IRL.

What steps should judges take to ensure they avoid conflicts of interest in fact and by impression?
I believe I have addressed this above.

Should the High Court seek to train judicial and legal talent?
Yes

If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, why did you answer that way, and what steps should be taken to train talent? If you answered "No" to the previous question, why not?
It’s good practice for every part of NS to train and nurture new players, or players new to that part of NS. This is a game, people like to try new things in it and this must be encouraged. I am unsure as to what is the best way to go about this in regards to the High Court, as it is a niche and technical section of TSP.

What role should public opinion and pressure, personal views or friendships and political alliances play in the judicial process?
Public opinion, pressure and political alliances should play no part in the judicial process; the entire point of having a judicial process is to make objective determinations that do not stem from such. Personal views and/or friendships may have a minor role in the judicial process, but only in that they can allow a justice to judge the credibility and reliability of a petitioner or witness, and thus what weight can be placed upon their evidence. Personal views/and or friendships should have no more impact on the judicial process, and in most cases where they exist recusal should be considered.

Moot Court

Following a fight with the Prime Minister, a highly popular Minister of Military Affairs submitted their letter of resignation, to be effective 72 hours after it was received. After repeated calls in the Assembly for the Minister to stay, they agreed to withdraw the resignation.
A newer legislator expressed his belief that the Charter does not allow resignations to be withdrawn. In response to this, the Prime Minister announced their intention to refuse the resignation. This same legislator again expressed his belief that the Charter did not allow for refusals. The resigning Minister filed the following question:

Can the Prime Minister refuse a resignation by a Minister? If accepted, are resignations immediate, or can they be withdrawn?

There is strong pressure on the Court to take the question and rule that resignations can be withdrawn, so that the Minister can continue serving without going through a special election.

Please rule on justiciability and, as appropriate, draft a ruling or explain your denial of justiciability.
[Sorry for the relatively brief answers to this and the following questions rather than a proper ruling, but I have a severe deficit of free time for the next six weeks - I hope I can give an idea of my thinking regardless, and if you need/want more detail let me know] 1. In the absence of specific reference to the Charter or Legal Code, which is not provided here, I would not deem a question justiciable. The court’s job is to interpret and clarify the law, and that requires people to tell us which law they are querying. I consider this question too vague for the court to address. 2. Convention and tradition holds that resignations are instantaneous - but this never has risen to the point of legal precedent, the issue never having been referred to the court in the past. 3. I am aware of no part of our laws dealing with the correct procedure and form of resignations (hence 1.) and thus the court could not rule on this. 4. The Cabinet could issue an executive order on this subject, or the assembly otherwise amend the law or issue a declaration/motion/whatever. 5. This is not a matter for the court.

Delegate Cobra attempted to overthrow the Coalition and replace it with the People's Republic of the South Pacific. Over the course of 10 days, he banjected over 1000 nations and orchestrated a smearing campaign against the Coalition, assisted by various propaganda allies on the RMB. He was finally overthrown and charged with treason under the Criminal Code.
Evidence includes his successive telegrams and posts, where he denounces the Coalition and defends the People's Republic, including a post where he explicitly says "I have couped, and I don't regret it. The Coalition was a corrupt government and had to fall." There are also logs and testimonies from defectors that prove he had been planning the coup for at least two weeks before it was done.

Cobra has argued that the evidence is fabricated and that he was simply enforcing the endorsement cap, but has refused to prove that the evidence was fabricated, or that any of the nations that he banjected had broken the cap. In the end he refused to participate in the trial, and his defence attorney, one of his propaganda allies, has consistently tried to derail the proceedings.

Please assume that proceedings have already taken place, and that you now have to draft the ruling and verdict.
1. Cobra is unambiguously guilty of treason here. 2. This reminds me of the Milograd trial. 3. Again, sorry for the lack of a proper draft.

A Local Councillor is facing criticism after they released a statement, signed with their official title, saying that a certain nation should be banned from the region. This nation took it as an official statement from the Local Council indicating that they were going to be banjected soon.
The Local Councillor has contended that the statement was not meant to be official, but to clarify the issue, they have submitted the following question:

Does appending one's position in Cabinet to a statement make it an official statement?

Please rule on justiciability and, as appropriate, draft a ruling or explain your denial of justiciability.
The situation here is effectively the same as with the first mock case; I would not accept the question due to lack of reference to the law, and there is no reference to the law as our laws do not mention this subject. Thus it is is not a matter for the court.

Specific Questions

You, albeit partially and rather ambiguously, supported Hileville's Cabinet in Feb2016. Would that happen again?
I think that was a complicated mess and a pile of crap all round. I supported the Cabinet in their initial actions - ie; the forum move - but events escalated beyond what I had signed up for quickly. Many people, including Tsu, have vouched for my actions during the crisis/coup - that I was trying to talk Hile down - and after he handed me control of his nation my actions speak for themselves. I highly doubt that the exact circumstances of Feb 2016 would happen again, but if we were to use a hypothetical time machine to go back in time I think I would probably do everything the same, assuming the same information and events

If you're asking in general - ie; "Would you support a coup?" - then no

With hindsight I would never have supported the Cabinet, but that's based on information I didn't have at the time

Reply

Hileville illegally created a new forum in order to oust Kris and myself as administrators, based on Imki’s provably (and proven) false claims that I had stymied her ability to conduct citizenship tests. Hileville simultaneously removed Kris from the CSS, which was blatantly illegal. Belschaft’s response doesn’t actually address why he supported that, nor why he didn’t, as a highly experienced Gameplayer, foresee the necessity of a coup to solidify illegally moving the forums and removing Kris from the CSS. The court played a pivotal role in fighting back against the Cabinet’s illegal moves.

So, why did Belschaft support actions the court later found illegal? Under what legal basis did he believe the Cabinet’s actions to be justifiable?

Does he agree that the court’s ruling is sound? If so, did he not understand the illegality of the actions he supported when they occurred?

For reference, the case opinion: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-3602-post-10...#pid109566

Reply

Hileville illegally created a new forum in order to oust Kris and myself as administrators, based on Imki’s provably (and proven) false claims that I had stymied her ability to conduct citizenship tests. Hileville simultaneously removed Kris from the CSS, which was blatantly illegal. Belschaft’s response doesn’t actually address why he supported that, nor why he didn’t, as a highly experienced Gameplayer, foresee the necessity of a coup to solidify illegally moving the forums and removing Kris from the CSS. The court played a pivotal role in fighting back against the Cabinet’s illegal moves.

So, why did Belschaft support actions the court later found illegal? Under what legal basis did he believe the Cabinet’s actions to be justifiable?

My feeling at the time was that the Cabinet had legitimate grievances against the admin team, in particular their refusal to follow the directives of the Vice-Delegate when it came to citizenship. It was not appropriate for the admin team to refuse legal instructions from the Cabinet, and to this day I do not consider "Kris posted two times in a secret admin area" to be sufficient reason for such. Had Kris wished to take the matter for the Court that would have been appropriate; for the admin team to refuse to enact the decisions of the Vice-Delegate was completely inappropriate and an abuse of power. My feelings on this were further supported by the treatment of Brutland and Norden, and the blatant double standards and favouritism displayed.

I did not consider the creation of new forums and the cabinet selecting a new admin team to be illegal; I had concerns about how Hile and the cabinet proposed to handle the matter, but on the root issue believed them to be in the right.
 

Does he agree that the court’s ruling is sound?

I agree with parts of Far's ruling and disagree with other parts.

I concur with his ruling on Part 1; whilst the Cabinet acted legally in a strict sense, it was via an overly literal reading of the law. Far produced a ruling that was not in keeping with the literal reading of the law, but such a ruling would have failed against the golden rule. His ruling considered the intent of the law and what mischief it was it was intended to prevent.

I partly concur with his ruling on Part 2; he was correct to identify that this was not a matter he could rule on. By declaring "This matter must be resolved by the administration team of the Regional Forum determined in Part 1 of this ruling according to its Administrative Procedures and Moderation Policies, or by laws of the South Pacific." he exceed his authority, by issuing instructions without basis in law. If "with no relevant basis in our laws the Court cannot issue a verdict on the matter" then the Court has no grounds to order a particular course of action.

On Part 3 I disagree with his ruling; as I consider the declaration of the Vice-Delegate that Kris' citizenship had lapsed, and thus he lost eligibility to sit on the CSS, to have been correct I do not consider this to have been a "unilateral" removal, but the Cabinet enforcing the law despite illegal obstruction.

Finally, I felt at the time - and today - that Far had a clear Conflict of Interest on this matter and should not have ruled on it.
 

If so, did he not understand the illegality of the actions he supported when they occurred?

My considered opinion was that the admin team was, at the time, illegally and inappropriately blocking legitimate Cabinet instructions. The Cabinet's view - as expressed to me - was that any attempt to move forums would be blocked by said admin team and the CSS, and that due to what they considered the illegal actions of the admin team they had to force the matter. My advice was that such a move should occur with a complete and ready replacement set of forums and an immediate vote on moving forums, setting out the reasons for the actions taken. Obviously this advice was not taken.

In short, whilst I thought the Cabinet was pushing the boundaries of legality I felt that as the admin team had essentially "started it" and was also acting illegally, that the decision was justified. My views on this were undeniably influenced by the fact that Hile assured me that he was eager to lift my banishment, but felt unable to do so whilst locked in a fight with the admin team and CSS - my desire to return home certainly affected my judgement.

_{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: 05-09-2018, 08:37 AM by Belschaft.)

Reply

A follow up Q&A that Roa forgot to post;

Hello there,

a few more questions for you before we finalize the selection for Associate Justices. Some of these may seem to be redundant after answering the previous survey, but there are subtle differences so please take note of these.

1. In an ideal world, what do you see as the optimal structure and operating paradigm for reaching and deliveriong opinions in the High Court (for example, should it operate like the Supreme Court with a majority opinion and possible dissenting opinions)? Please elaborate.
2. If it was suggested or strongly stressed through public opinion would you recuse yourself from a case?
3. What is the balance between wanting to have sound rule of law and also wanting to have expediency so court cases don't drag on ad infinitum?
4. How would you work with a Justice who you don't get along with?
5. What would you do if you strongly disagreed with a Justice opinion? Do you think its fair to ask Justices to not dramatize disagreements?
6. How do you plan to balance your political activities and controversies with what is generally a very apolitical role?
7. In a hypothetical case that you were ruling on, would you be able to make a ruling that abides by our laws despite being against your personal moral compass (both IC and OOC)? How would you reconcile?
8. At what level do you believe the burden of proof of an NS Court should be reliant on? (Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Clear And Convincing, Probable Cause, etc)

Please answer at your earliest convenience.

-- Roavin

1. Generally speaking I think it's best that decision of the High Court not be made by one person, but by a panel; in my experience a three person tribunal is the best number. It means that our laws aren't being decided by one person, as even the most objective and knowledgeable of people are fallible; and sometimes just hold opinions that are outside the norm.

I think it's a system that works; TSP used to use it, and there was at least one occasion I can remember where I as Chief Justice was in the minority and the Associate Justices wrote a majority opinion I dissented on. I think having a "leading" justice who handles the question is a good idea from an administrative point of view, but with multiple justices involved the issue can/will be approached from multiple angles, with a potential for things being raised that a single justice would not have thought of or considered asking about.

2. It's important that judicial actions are not only fair and impartial, but also believed to be fair and impartial. If a significant section of the public does not believe a justice can consider a matter fairly and should recuse themselves then they should do so; not necessarily because they do have a conflict of interest, but because the mere perception of one can taint the court and it's verdict.

3. Sound rule of law has to come first; that's the job of the court. Having a court make decisions is by definition not an expedient way of doing things. That said, a properly run court should be able to hear cases in a reasonable time frame.

4. Ignoring the fact that I've been on a court with Unibot and didn't have any problems, working with people you don't like is called being an adult. It's something I've done for years in NS and real life.

5. There's a need to remain professional in such matters, and certainly not to be "dramatic" - that said, there is an appeals system and if I thought another justice had ruled incorrectly due to contradiction of law and the case came before me it is likely that I would rule differently to them. I'm sure some people might call that dramatic, but I wouldn't. I'm honestly not entirely sure what was meant by the question; if you meant "Would I not make it known if I disagreed with another justices ruling" then no - I would exercise my right to free speech and dissent. People shouldn't pretend to believe things they don't unless it's an express part of the job (ie; cabinet collective responsibility), and if I thought Kris had ruled wrongly I'd say so.

6. What political activities? I haven't seriously run for office in years, and have little intention of doing so. As I'm not involved in NSGP in any way outside TSP I'm not sure how I'd cause controversies, and unless someone submits something stupid like a "Make TSP Defender and ban Raiders Act" in the Assembly I can't imagine I'd get into a big row in the assembly.

NS is a game; the role of a justice in TSP is to interpret our rules objectively. That's something I've done before and can do today.

7. I don't see how my "OOC" morality would have any input on NS and TSP's court; as I've said, it's a game. If the Assembly amended the charter to ban all gay players or something like that they would come into effect, but that is frankly an absurd scenario. ICly I don't have a "moral compass" in the way the term is commonly used; NS and TSP have rules, I play by them. The job of the court is to apply and interpret the rules. Laws might be passed that I disagree with, but that wouldn't stop me interpreting/enforcing them as written.

I tend to have a more expansive view of the Charter's BoR than some people, but I don't think that's a bad thing or an issue of "moral compass" - it's a question of how the laws are written.

8. Clear and Convincing, and I got that standard adopted in the Judicial Act.

_{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

Belschaft, the wording on your response to Sand’s line of questions has me worried so I would like to confirm something.

You say that you supported Hileville and parties decision to coup the region and illegally create a new TSP Forum because the admin team broke the law first in your eyes with how they were, in your opinion, illegally restricting legislator apps against the wishes of the VD correct?

If so my question is then, do you still support this Tit for Tat style behaviour in regards to obeying the laws of our region? I personally believe that following the law is at the responsibility of the individual and others breaking it does not give proper cause to break it yourself. I would hope you , today, think the same.

Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.

Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.'

I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P.

Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P

Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo

Reply

Belschaft, the wording on your response to Sand’s line of questions has me worried so I would like to confirm something.

You say that you supported Hileville and parties decision to coup the region and illegally create a new TSP Forum because the admin team broke the law first in your eyes with how they were, in your opinion, illegally restricting legislator apps against the wishes of the VD correct?

If so my question is then, do you still support this Tit for Tat style behaviour in regards to obeying the laws of our region? I personally believe that following the law is at the responsibility of the individual and others breaking it does not give proper cause to break it yourself. I would hope you , today, think the same.

That's not quite what I said or meant; my understanding of the facts in 2015 were that the admin team was acting illegally in refusing the directions of the Cabinet. The cabinet's argument as presented to me was that as such they felt compelled to move forums, and did not believe that the admin team or CSS would "allow" this; Hile specifically raised that he felt that there would be accusations of a coup no matter what he did, and that the CSS would treat the cabinet in such a manner. My recommendation to Hileville was that - if this was the case - his first action upon establishing and launching new forums should be to bring the matter to the Assembly, so as to present his case and seek support and legitimisation. He did not follow my advice; I believe that had he done so the Assembly likely would have approved the forum move at the time.

The transition of the "crisis" into a coup occurred later on, and was something I had no control over and only extremely reluctantly "supported".

I would agree that everyone should obey the law, but where a party in power engages in lawless behaviour there may be no legal remedy to correct this. We will never know whether the cabinet was correct in suspecting that they would have faced opposition, including the possible extra-legal opposition they feared, had they not sought to use a loophole.

I stand by my opinion from the time that the actions of the cabinet back then - whilst certainly regrettable, and soon going beyond what I supported or approved of - where not entirely without cause.

I must emphasis that much of that is a political rather than legal opinion. I openly acknowledge the legally questionable nature of the forum move - and think Far ruled correctly on that point - but do not believe that situation can be reduced to a simple case of "right and wrong".

_{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: 05-09-2018, 10:46 AM by Belschaft.)

Reply

I suppose the underlying question was if you would be prone to supporting such illegal acts in the future. While we're at it, if you would also be susceptible to letting political opinions or goals affect your work as a Justice.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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