Term 1 - Nominations for Associate Judge Advocate

[Chieftess]

All members of the judiciary share several traditional rights and responsibilities:

Post polls and discussion on interpretations of the Constitution, Code of Laws, and Code of Standards.
Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem justicesif they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for but are a temporary position and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.
Participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to dismiss investigations as having "No Merit".
Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review (chief justice only).

Please Accept or Decline any nominations you receive.

 

[Immortal]

Self nominate

Accepted

Nominate CYC for the position.

 

[Noldodan]

, CT. As per the results of this poll, we will have a JA and a PD instead of associate justices.

 

[Immortal]

It hasnt been ratified yet, and I asked CT about this in the chatroom and she said that they are placeholder names until they are ratified.

 

[Chieftess]

I was waiting on the correct terms as so not to incur the wraith of certain, self-professed demogame lawyers.

 

[Cyc]

I accept. Thank you Immortal. I will second Immortal.

 

[truckingpete]

2nd Cyc...

 

[Sarevok]

Second both candidates...

 

[DaveShack]

I nominate Ankka.

 

[Ankka]

Me? Whoa...!

I accept.

 

[Curufinwe]

Pending legality. I nominate myself and Accept

 

[blackheart]

I nominate myself.

Justice for all.

 

[Cyc]

I'll second Ankka, Curu, and blackheart.

 

[Cyc]

Question for the candidates:

What principle would you use for a basis in determining whether an investigation had "No Merit"?

 

[GenMarshall]

I'll Third Ankka, Curu, and blackheart.

 

[DaveShack]

Questions for the candidates:

1. For Judicial Reviews, what facts will you use to interpret the laws? If you have contradicting pieces of information from different sources, how do you reconcile the differences?

2. In PI / CC proceedings, does the motive of the complaintant have any bearing on how you decide if the case has merit.

 

[Immortal]

I will address number 2 first as it is a simpler matter: The movtive of an accuser, while important, is secondary to the evidence presented. If the evidence is solid, I will proceed with the investigation. However, if the evidence is circumstantial, and the conversations relevent involve great heresay, the motive behind the case WILL be taken into account to protect the accused.

Now the first point:

Laws must be interpreted based upon not only their wording, but their SPIRIT. Many laws have been broken, in this game and in real life, by people who use the wording of the law to bend it. This is where the spirit of the law must be considered, as a formulator of this constitution I consider the spirit of the laws contained to be extremely apparent to me. The differences between the information must be reconciled on what can be legitimized to a greater extent. If two pieces of information about an individual come forward, the one which can be verified by the greatest number, and in more detail, will be the information that is considered most important.

 

[Immortal]

Cyc's question:

In terms of what would cause me to do so: Lack of evidence and the relevent constitutional articles, nothing more. Whether an investigation is political in nature or not, it is the job of the judiciary to uphold the constitution, and defend the accused from wrongful investigation. The evidence will determine whether the case has merit, not the accusers person axe.

 

[Cyc]

Questions for the candidates:

1. For Judicial Reviews, what facts will you use to interpret the laws? If you have contradicting pieces of information from different sources, how do you reconcile the differences?

As our ruleset is still in the gelling stage, the first part of this question is a difficult one. At this point, I'm assuming that above and betond our Constitution, we will have a set of lower laws to help articulate the Articles of the Constitution. But our eventual ruleset will be the facts I use to guide me in determining a ruling. The second part of the question is tricky also, as I have been trying to keep contridictions out of the picture as we go along in our writings. As these rules are now being voted on, the formulation period is over, but this is just in regards to the Articles being polled at this time. There will still be amendments made to the Articles, I'm sure. There are also other areas of Demogame law that have not been addressed yet. So more Articles and probably that book of lower laws is still to come. As we step through this process, contridictions will be found and removed (hopefully). If this is not the case in your question, then I would say common sense deliberation among the 3 Justices (and perhaps a poll) would find the solution.

2. In PI / CC proceedings, does the motive of the complaintant have any bearing on how you decide if the case has merit.

Let me put a time frame or chronological order to this question as a way of answering it properly (for me anyway). If I am looking at a complaint that would lead to a PI/CC, there is no complaintant. There is just a complaint that I have to deal with. I'm not in a case yet where I have to consider motive. That's not part of my job yet. I just have to read this complaint, and determine whether it's feasible that person "A" broke law "B", "C", and/or "D". I couldn't careless if Person "A" was called a ninny by Person "Q" or visa-versa. The workload I experienced in Term 1 DG4 as CJ meant that My Bench was putting out a decision/ruling every two or three days. We didn't have time to get into daily soap operas happening in the forums. We did our jobs the best we could, and we stuck to procedure. I hope I explained my point of view well enough.

edit: Changed "every three days" to "every two or three days" as there was a period when it averaged out to two days.

 

[Bootstoots]

Three questions I'm going to put in every nomination thread (except FA, as I'm running there):

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?