Dear Chairwoman, dear fellow Legislators,

after extensive (and extremely tiring >_>) deliberation, the Cabinet and Chief Justice Kris Kringle have decided to appoint Belschaft to serve as Associate Justice.

His credentials to the job are extensive. He has been Court Justice, Alternate Justice, and Chief Justice in TSP. He served as both Court Justice and Deputy Attorney General in TNP, as the inaugural Chief Justice and principal author of the judicial system in the Humane Republic of Lazarus. Furthermore, the player has RL experience in the area, both as a hobby and professionally. In his answers to the interview questions, Belschaft displayed an impressive command of the principles of judicial interpretation and awareness of the expectations from a judge and the role of the judiciary within the Coalition.

Chairwoman, with the power vested in me as Prime Minister of the Coalition, I declare that the Cabinet and Chief Justice have in good faith appointed Belschaft to serve as Associate Justice in accordance with per Article 1 Section 5 of the Judicial Act, and request that the corresponding assembly procedure is initiated.

The Chief Justice, the Cabinet, and the appointee are happy to answer any and all questions that our fellow Legislators have.

-- Roavin

_{P.S. Yes, another appointment is coming.}

(This post was last modified: 05-21-2018, 04:40 PM by Nakari.)

Reply

"But guys isn't there supposed more than one nominee" - haters probably

SOON

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Reply

Is it really a vote if I only have one option?

Can we nominate Sand, kthx bai 



[Just being a little shit, I support this nomination and am excited to see him in the post gl and you have my support Bels ]

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

Is it really a vote if I only have one option?

It's a confirmation vote, not an election.

You will have, in fact, three options - Aye, Nay, and Abstain.

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Reply

Is it really a vote if I only have one option?

It's a confirmation vote, not an election.

You will have, in fact, three options - Aye, Nay, and Abstain.

Did you just facetiously answer me with a genuine response to a partial quote of my original, sassy, statement?

You truly are the original flamer *bows to papa*

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

Is it really a vote if I only have one option?

It's a confirmation vote, not an election.

You will have, in fact, three options - Aye, Nay, and Abstain.

Did you just facetiously answer me with a genuine response to a partial quote of my original, sassy, statement?

You truly are the original flamer *bows to papa*

I did indeed.

Love you son <3

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Reply

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

Reply

Congrats, Bels!

This was the easiest part of the deliberations  

Escade

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

My Pinterest

 

Reply

I'd like to request the answers Belschaft gave to the questionnaires sent out to judicial candidates. 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.

Also, given his extensive history in TSP, both in the political arena and the number of times he's been in front of the court, can we dispense with the notion that Belschaft is an apolitical unbiased actor? We should know what we're getting on the court, and Belschaft (along with me) is in a group of players that honestly can never be called apolitical. I don't think having political convictions is disqualifying in itself, but I do think we should be up front about it, otherwise the court's legitimacy is going to be damaged.

Lastly, and this is a point of process, I'm uncomfortable with 90% of the decision-making process about judicial appointments being held in secret. The Assembly is being asked to vote on the Cabinet's picks, but we don't actually get to see the real reasons why the Cabinet and Chief Justice have selected somebody. We only get to see the PR-approved message forwarded to the Assembly. I'd like to request that the Cabinet publish their deliberations, so we can know exactly how and why they've reached their appointment decisions. That would help the Assembly get a better idea of what the candidate's qualifications truly are.

For full disclosure, I was also asked to fill out questionnaires for this process and I will be posting my answers shortly!

Questionnaire Answers

The first round of questions were in the form of a Google survey, so I can't access them. The Cabinet hopefully will post all questionnaire answers from that round.

The second round of questions was delivered via PM, and these were my answers:

----

1. In an ideal world, what do you see as the optimal structure and operating paradigm for reaching and delivering opinions in the High Court (for example, should it operate like the Supreme Court with a majority opinion and possible dissenting opinions)? Please elaborate.

The most optimal way for the court to run is to have one justice per case, which avoids the need to get multiple people on the same page all the time. Justices shouldn't confer with each other on their assigned cases, because that removes the legal right to a fair appeal. The High Court shouldn't operate like the real-life Supreme Court. We've done that before and it wasn't a very successful system. The court already moves at a glacial pace, and requiring that all Justices get a say in writing their own opinion would only increase the amount of time a case takes to finish.

2. If it was suggested or strongly stressed through public opinion would you recuse yourself from a case?

Because of public opinion alone? No. I've experienced "public opinion" and it's usually one or two very loud people who have a personal grudge to push. That doesn't mean a foe can't be right, but drumming up propaganda to get a justice to recuse themselves (because you don't like how they're probably going to rule) isn't how a fair judiciary works.
 

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?

The premise here is wrong. It simply doesn't take 2 months to come up with an opinion on a legal issue that is grounded in a sound understanding of the rule of law. Our laws are simple. It doesn't take a lawyer to interpret them, and it shouldn't take even longer than in the real world to reach a judgement. There's really no reason why a justice can't take an afternoon on their day off work, research the issue at hand, and write a solid opinion by dinnertime. Frankly, the Cormac trial was unacceptably slow because a) Kris entertained extensions he shouldn't have and b) Belschaft and Roavin took too long to write out their cases. In my honest opinion, Roavin should've had his entire case pre-written-- collect your evidence, write your story, connect the dots, and post it all at once. Don't bring a case to the court if you haven't already built a case in the first place. Once the prosecution delivers its case, it shouldn't take much longer for the defense to respond. They already know the preliminary evidence from when the case was granted, and thus know what arguments need to be made to provide a solid defense (if one is even possible). There's just no reason why any legal case, criminal or LQ, should take a month or more.
 

4. How would you work with a Justice who you don't get along with?

Because I believe cases should be randomly assigned and justices shouldn't be conferring with each other, I don't see a reason why Justices need to get along with each other at all. There wouldn't be much "working together" to happen.

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?

If it was their case, then the decision is in their power. Justices should be free to disagree with each other. In the real world, Supreme Court justices talk about past cases they disagree with all the time. I don't know what is meant by "dramatizing disagreements." The word "drama" is thrown around a lot by people who just aren't interested in hearing arguments and usually have no stake in them anyways.

6. How do you plan to balance your political activities and controversies with what is generally a very apolitical role?

I don't intend to decrease my political involvement in the region if chosen as an associate Justice. I have serious political opinions and my ambitions have not retired. I may run for office in the future. It's up to the Cabinet to decide if they want to appoint a Justice with outspoken political opinions.

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)

Because this is a game, I don't really know what is meant by something being "against my personal moral compass." If it's OOC and it's bad, it's not a case for the court, but for administration. If you're talking raiding or defending, or whatever, our laws already allow a wide latitude for the military. I can't answer this question with such a broad possibility of meanings.

As for the burden of proof, ideally I think the most minimal burden is sufficient in almost all cases. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a ridiculous burden of proof that can't be met in NS 90% of the time without hacking into people's accounts and reading their personal correspondence (something real-life law enforcement is able to do, but we aren't). I think "clear and convincing evidence" is probably going to end up being morphed into a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard anyways (because it's a legal term of art that the average person doesn't understand), which is why I argued against switching to it in our legal system. However, Justices must abide by the laws as written, and our laws lay out what burden of proof needs to be used, so it's not like any Justice can just decide a different one because they disagree with the prescribed one. 

(This post was last modified: 05-06-2018, 09:32 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I'd like to request the answers Belschaft gave to the questionnaires sent out to judicial candidates.

Not an issue. I'm waiting on Bel's okay, and then I'll post them here.

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.

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.

Also, given his extensive history in TSP, both in the political arena and the number of times he's been in front of the court, can we dispense with the notion that Belschaft is an apolitical unbiased actor? We should know what we're getting on the court, and Belschaft (along with me) is in a group of players that honestly can never be called apolitical. I don't think having political convictions is disqualifying in itself, but I do think we should be up front about it, otherwise the court's legitimacy is going to be damaged.

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 think you are presenting a legitimate concern, don't get me wrong, but it was considered.

Lastly, and this is a point of process, I'm uncomfortable with 90% of the decision-making process about judicial appointments being held in secret. The Assembly is being asked to vote on the Cabinet's picks, but we don't actually get to see the real reasons why the Cabinet and Chief Justice have selected somebody. We only get to see the PR-approved message forwarded to the Assembly. I'd like to request that the Cabinet publish their deliberations, so we can know exactly how and why they've reached their appointment decisions. That would help the Assembly get a better idea of what the candidate's qualifications truly are.

Personally, I'm intrigued by the idea, though I think they should be presented in a separate thread (which Escade has already done). As for this particular nomination, once again I encourage any and all legislators to ask any and all questions they have regarding the nominee or the selection process.

You should all make us convince you of the merits of this choice!

Reply