Term 2- Election for Public Defender

Pick a Public Defender:
Ravensfire
Daghdha

I support ravensfire.

Fellow citizens,

I again come before you, seeking the right to defend you all from those that would accuse you and deny your rights before a court of law. I humbly ask that you consider my words here and the efforts of my first term as you make your decision.

As you have seen in the first term, I have a strong belief in the laws we have before us, that those laws, right or wrong, must stand. I believe that the court does not, and cannot decide good versus bad, only the constitutionality of laws. I believe that the court should always be the last action taken, not the first. I believe that all are equal, and that it is our collective wisdom that has guided our nation, and will continue to show our path for the future.

As my rulings have demonstrated, I'm fairly methodical, looking at questions from several differnent angles. I have, and will continue to do so, consult with my fellow members of the court and engage both them and all interested citizens in debate on matters before the court.

Fortunately, the main job of the Public Defender, that of serving as counsel for an accused citizen, was not needed. I can assure you that I will defend anyone, regardless of their action, should they wish me to do so. In the one previous trial I have been involved in, I was an agressive advocate.

I'm also a strong advocate of citizens making law, not the court. I've started a discussion on various decision types because of the confusion that was happening. The results of that will be used in our Code of Laws to clarify the matter. I also participate in discussions on the rules to suggest changes to improve the readability and focus of the proposal.

There haven't been questions of yet, but I'll try to answer some that I've posed in another thread, just to add some life here.

1) Can you give a general statement about the procedures you plan to use?
I hope to see procedures generally the same as currently exist.


2) Let's say a citizen poll over a decision quickly entered into heated discussion about procedural matters. The Censor has not weighed into the debate yet. A citizen involved requests a JR for the court to "determine the type and validity" of the poll. what would you do?
I would reject the request. As I've said above, the Court should be the last option, not the first. I would request the citizen await the decision of the Censor, request their reasoning, and request an JR based on that. In matters like this, the Court should be used to review the action taken, not decide what action to take.

3) Where does the concept of "fun" enter into your rulings?
It's there, but after the concept of "law". Without consistent application of the rules, it becomes difficult for citizens to determine what should and should not be done.

Thanks to all who vote!
-- Ravensfire, candidate for Public Defender

Who can really compete with such an eloquent statement as the one above? An Idiot? Ah, right....an Idiot

Ravensfire it is

As official Censor of the Citiziens Assembly, I declare this poll valid and Declare Ravensfire Term 2 Public Defender

I congratulate Ravensfire to the undisputable victory and I'm sure he will fit the office nicely

Thanks! Hopefully, you'll decide to run against next term, and get into the spirited debate that makes this process fun!

-- Ravensfire