Log in or Sign up
Capitalist Paradise Forums
Home
Forums
>
General Discussion
>
Discussion
>
Gameplay
Election for Alternate Justice
>
Reply to Thread
Name:
Verification:
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Capitalist Producers, post: 910, member: 412"]Hi there,</p><p><br /></p><p>As a candidate for Alt. Justice, I'll address the questions presented to the candidates.</p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000ff">1) Do you feel that the Magna Carta is adequate as-is?</span></i></p><p>Personally, I think there are some loose ends that could be cleaned up. As a justice that is not my call.</p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000ff">2) What sort of time availability do you have that you can dedicate to Capitalist Paradise?</span></i></p><p>I am usually on every day. Some days I am on more then others. It all depends on RL work and getting internet connections while on the road. In the spirit of full disclosure, the RL must take precedent if there is a conflict.</p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000ff">3) When you are presented a legal question not strictly covered by the Constitution, how would you issue a ruling?</span></i></p><p>You are asking me to rule on something that has not come up yet. However, the constitution requires the court to be the final arbitrator in all disputes. Read on:</p><blockquote><p> <ul> <li>Enforcement and defense of this Constitution</li> <li>Resolve civil disputes among member nations if and after all reasonable efforts of the Advocate have been exhausted</li> <li>Resolve criminal complaints.</li> <li>Refer guilty parties to the CEO for ejection, banning or banning and ejection from the region if warranted; in the opinion of the panel.</li> </ul> </p></blockquote><p>Therefore, after determining there was no constitutional issue at hand, I would rule based on the facts presented in the case. The emotional content of the argument or the political positions held by parties to the case will have no effect on that ruling. That ruling would be as fair to all concerned as is possible under the circumstances. </p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000ff">4) What legislative experiences do you have, if any? (World Assembly, Capitalist Paradise, real life, other?)</span></i></p><p>No hands on legislative experience. However I have 60 years of real life experience. There are life lessons in there that cannot be matched. I have studied everything from small town politics to international relations to criminal acts and trials. Through my work I've had a ring side seat for five presidential elections, watched as state and federal legislators made lofty speeches about right and wrong while cutting back room deals for their vote and then watched the aftermath. </p><p><br /></p><p>--AND--</p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000ff">1) In the event of a breach of law within the region, how do you think punishment should be carried out? Provide hypothetical examples if you wish.</span></i></p><p>We are very limited in available punishment options. Those punishments are:</p><ul> <li>Warning</li> <li>Probation (possibly with clearly outlined conditions of probabtion) for a set length of time</li> <li>Ejection</li> <li>Ejection with banning</li> </ul><p>Once convicted, any punishment should be based on what happened, what is fair to the parties involved and what is best for the region. That punishment should commence as soon as possible after the ruling is handed down. </p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000ff">2) Do you believe that an individual's position or history within region should be a consideration for their criminal sentencing?</span></i></p><p>Of course. Even convicted child molesters and murderers are allowed a presentence hearing. </p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000ff">3) Have you had interactions with any of the current seated justices, and if so, in what capacity?</span></i></p><p>Yes. Panageadom and I frequently butt heads on RMB. </p><p><br /></p><p>In other questions that have come up in this thread... </p><ul> <li>I completely agree with Singpu that judges do not make laws. They rule based on the law and nothing else. Judges should never legislate from the bench. For example, I completely agreed with and defended John Robert's ruling on the ACA because he was right under the law. That is the way I would arrive at my decisions.</li> </ul><p> <ul> <li>I completely disagree with ComputerCurtis' ranking of how he would rule from the bench. Judges must rule on the law first. Real world law does not apply here. And common sense comes in after the law and constitution.</li> </ul><p>If there are any questions, I will be happy to address them.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Capitalist Producers, post: 910, member: 412"]Hi there, As a candidate for Alt. Justice, I'll address the questions presented to the candidates. [I][COLOR=#0000ff]1) Do you feel that the Magna Carta is adequate as-is?[/COLOR][/I] Personally, I think there are some loose ends that could be cleaned up. As a justice that is not my call. [I][COLOR=#0000ff]2) What sort of time availability do you have that you can dedicate to Capitalist Paradise?[/COLOR][/I] I am usually on every day. Some days I am on more then others. It all depends on RL work and getting internet connections while on the road. In the spirit of full disclosure, the RL must take precedent if there is a conflict. [I][COLOR=#0000ff]3) When you are presented a legal question not strictly covered by the Constitution, how would you issue a ruling?[/COLOR][/I] You are asking me to rule on something that has not come up yet. However, the constitution requires the court to be the final arbitrator in all disputes. Read on: [INDENT][LIST] [*]Enforcement and defense of this Constitution [*]Resolve civil disputes among member nations if and after all reasonable efforts of the Advocate have been exhausted [*]Resolve criminal complaints. [*]Refer guilty parties to the CEO for ejection, banning or banning and ejection from the region if warranted; in the opinion of the panel. [/LIST][/INDENT] Therefore, after determining there was no constitutional issue at hand, I would rule based on the facts presented in the case. The emotional content of the argument or the political positions held by parties to the case will have no effect on that ruling. That ruling would be as fair to all concerned as is possible under the circumstances. [I][COLOR=#0000ff]4) What legislative experiences do you have, if any? (World Assembly, Capitalist Paradise, real life, other?)[/COLOR][/I] No hands on legislative experience. However I have 60 years of real life experience. There are life lessons in there that cannot be matched. I have studied everything from small town politics to international relations to criminal acts and trials. Through my work I've had a ring side seat for five presidential elections, watched as state and federal legislators made lofty speeches about right and wrong while cutting back room deals for their vote and then watched the aftermath. --AND-- [I][COLOR=#0000ff]1) In the event of a breach of law within the region, how do you think punishment should be carried out? Provide hypothetical examples if you wish.[/COLOR][/I] We are very limited in available punishment options. Those punishments are: [LIST] [*]Warning [*]Probation (possibly with clearly outlined conditions of probabtion) for a set length of time [*]Ejection [*]Ejection with banning [/LIST] Once convicted, any punishment should be based on what happened, what is fair to the parties involved and what is best for the region. That punishment should commence as soon as possible after the ruling is handed down. [I][COLOR=#0000ff]2) Do you believe that an individual's position or history within region should be a consideration for their criminal sentencing?[/COLOR][/I] Of course. Even convicted child molesters and murderers are allowed a presentence hearing. [I][COLOR=#0000ff]3) Have you had interactions with any of the current seated justices, and if so, in what capacity?[/COLOR][/I] Yes. Panageadom and I frequently butt heads on RMB. In other questions that have come up in this thread... [LIST] [*]I completely agree with Singpu that judges do not make laws. They rule based on the law and nothing else. Judges should never legislate from the bench. For example, I completely agreed with and defended John Robert's ruling on the ACA because he was right under the law. That is the way I would arrive at my decisions. [/LIST] [LIST] [*]I completely disagree with ComputerCurtis' ranking of how he would rule from the bench. Judges must rule on the law first. Real world law does not apply here. And common sense comes in after the law and constitution. [/LIST] If there are any questions, I will be happy to address them.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Login with NationStates
Capitalist Paradise Forums
Home
Forums
>
General Discussion
>
Discussion
>
Gameplay
Election for Alternate Justice
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Recent Activity
What's New?
Help
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Quotations
Quotations
Quick Links
All Quotations
Search Quotations
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Chat
Constitution
Government
Embassies
Ministry of Interior
Regional Map
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...