How do we want it set up?

As the Chief Justice is the Founder's appointee, he should be the one to remove an ineffective or incompetent Chief Justice. The same would be for the other two Justices. They should be removed by the sane process that seated them.

We may need a State Prosecutor/Solicitor General to prosecute those brought to trial for crimes against the State. This need not be a permanent position, though there should be a pool of candidates from which the Chief Justice may choose and appoint on a case by case basis.

River wrote:As the Chief Justice is the Founder's appointee, he should be the one to remove an ineffective or incompetent Chief Justice. The same would be for the other two Justices. They should be removed by the sane process that seated them.

We may need a State Prosecutor/Solicitor General to prosecute those brought to trial for crimes against the State. This need not be a permanent position, though there should be a pool of candidates from which the Chief Justice may choose and appoint on a case by case basis.

'

I really like your idea of an office of 'Solicitor General' / 'State Prosecutor' to prosecute crimes against state. This office would be an appointee of the Chief Justice, correct ?

usually the executive would house a position called 'Attorney General' which would represent the administration in court, seeing as the Executive is responsible for 'enforcing' the laws it would be their duty, not the duty of the judicial branch/cheif justice to bring perpetrators to court.

so there for the Triurivative/Prime Minister/President would appoint that position.

Serenel wrote:

so there for the Triurivative/Prime Minister/President would appoint that position.

Cool beans, so to speak. Also you forgot 'Premier'. It seems the office is going to be more 'Prime Ministerial', however we should use the name 'Premier' since it's way way cooler.

Well That is probably going to be the next big debate of the region once this referendum in finalized.

however seeing as this is neither the forum, nor the time to hold it i am holding off in introducing it.

Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:

Serenel wrote:

so there for the Triurivative/Prime Minister/President would appoint that position.

Cool beans, so to speak. Also you forgot 'Premier'. It seems the office is going to be more 'Prime Ministerial', however we should use the name 'Premier' since it's way way cooler.

Premier is definitely cooler than Prime Minister, ewww.

Serenel wrote:usually the executive would house a position called 'Attorney General' which would represent the administration in court, seeing as the Executive is responsible for 'enforcing' the laws it would be their duty, not the duty of the judicial branch/cheif justice to bring perpetrators to court.

so there for the Triurivative/Prime Minister/President would appoint that position.

Since I was trying to hold government to a minimum, I did not lobby for the position of 'Attorney General' to be created. I merely suggested that a pool of qualified candidates be assembled to be available if there are crimes against the State (Region). Once chosen, these people would then prosecute the case. In civil matters, the complainant would file his Civil or Criminal suit with the court. The individuals could represent themselves of have consul represent them.

Well in all technicality the Prime Minister/President would have to represent the administration if there was no an office of an Attorney General.

of course the Prime Minister/Premier/President could leave the office vacant until their is a case, but then s/he would have to go through the hassle of getting a candidate passed through the Assembly before the candidate could represent the system, especially if we are having a Prime Minister/Premier, and even if we had a President because a check of the Legislature would be approving Executive Officials.

I feel that the Legislature would pass legislation to create a pool of prosecutors. They would be chosen only when there was a need and totally at random. If there was a conflict of interest, I would hope that the one chosen would recuse him/herself and another could be chosen from the pool.

River wrote:I feel that the Legislature would pass legislation to create a pool of prosecutors. They would be chosen only when there was a need and totally at random. If there was a conflict of interest, I would hope that the one chosen would recuse him/herself and another could be chosen from the pool.

Well, when using a system like that we would, unfortunately, come across underqualified prosecutors not effectively prosecuting certain cases. In those instances, we could have egregious affronts to our regional law go unpunished / unnoticed due to ineffective prosecution. I feel that having a qualified official, who is appointed to that office, is the best route to pursue in terms of an 'Attorney General'.

Another region had a qualification examinations for it's Consuls. That could weed out the wheat from the chaff.

River wrote:Another region had a qualification examinations for it's Consuls. That could weed out the wheat from the chaff.

That's fine. My cream always rises to the top.

These examinations were given by the Chief Justice and were based on the Constitution, Legal Code, Rules of Evidence and Court Procedure.

River wrote:These examinations were given by the Chief Justice and were based on the Constitution, Legal Code, Rules of Evidence and Court Procedure.

I would assume there should be a similar examination given to the Chief Justice, upon his/her appointment, in order to determine their knowledge of TDS legal code.

That would be incumbent on the Founder as the Chief Justice is his appointment.

River wrote:That would be incumbent on the Founder as the Chief Justice is his appointment.

Oh' that's cool, I was planning on appointing my dog, anyway. Croneyism is so FTW!

That smacks of nepotism.

well it would be up to the founder and then also the assembly to question the chief justice.

or atleast i hope they would so they assembly could make an informed decision.

Serenel wrote:well it would be up to the founder and then also the assembly to question the chief justice.

or atleast i hope they would so they assembly could make an informed decision.

Yes, I would encourage and expect the Assembly to conduct a thorough 'examination' / 'interview' before their acceptance is approved / denied.

For high profile cases, we could get one of the major legal eagles of NS to preside. I know most of them.

I generally would be against 'importating' a judge to decide a case in our region.

it kind of infringes upon the soverginty of our region, and our culture.

we make our own laws, we should interpret our own laws...

i just would envision it like the United States asking Canada to send over a judge for a court case...

River wrote:For high profile cases, we could get one of the major legal eagles of NS to preside. I know most of them.

I would welcome the 'outside' help, but I could foresee some internal jealousy, specifically from the Chief Justice. That is kind of his 'turf', if you will.

What would you do if the Justices recuse themselves or if the accused cannot receive a fair an impartial trial here? I have been witness to many of those occasions.

That is a good question, and one i believe the Legislature should debate and pass a Act on when it is established.

there are many other methods then seeking another regions judge that can be dealt with internally.

And if it involves a high profile case, there is no way that an accused can get a fair and impartial trial. The defendant may desire to bring Consul from the outside to defend him here, regardless of the circumstances. I would have my friend represent me were I to be charged with a crime.

You will find that as TDS becomes more active and involved in the interregional affairs of NS, there will be more interaction with people outside of the region.