Welcome to Lazarus

Please register to view all features
Register

Lazarene forum

Introduce yourself and learn about the forum here

Discussion Appointment of Wymondham as Justice

This is not your first time on the bench. How long do you think you can stay on the wheel of Justices?
 
Relevant to this thread are my answers a question in a previous nomination thread.

Also relevant are my rulings as opinion author in the following cases:
Allowable Scope of HEPA Proscriptions (2019)
Banishment Applicability to Discord Ruling (2020)
Clarification on Public Infrastructure (2020)
Do Treaties supersede domestic law? (2020)
Espionage Clarification (2020)

As well as the following trials that I presided over:
Treadwellia v Bowshot118 (2019)
McChimp vs Vedan (2020)

Conflicts of interest:
My NS CV which contains my entire prior career can be found here

Externally of Lazarus I am currently a citizen in TWP and a citizen in Edlhus, a small 38 nation region (where I currently hold the position of Chancellor - my CV has not been updated since I took that post), I am not counting any residencies I may have as I have puppets dotted over various places some for historical purposes, some because I haven't moved them yet etc.
 
Domais said:
This is not your first time on the bench. How long do you think you can stay on the wheel of Justices?
Click to expand...
Either until I no longer become needed or if I take a post in another region that would create a conflict of interest (e.g. any post as a minister in another region) and that is unlikely to happen for the forseable future
 
2 questions:
A. What are your thoughts on the guilty verdict in McChimp v. Vedan? I do not see a detailed ruling, and I feel the guilty verdict is not just, especially without a full opinion posted.
B. What would you fundamentally change about the court?
 
Frankender said:
2 questions:
A. What are your thoughts on the guilty verdict in McChimp v. Vedan? I do not see a detailed ruling, and I feel the guilty verdict is not just, especially without a full opinion posted.
B. What would you fundamentally change about the court?
Click to expand...
That was down to a database transfer error, you can check the thread again or view them here:
Wymondham said:
Official Update:
At 0:37 AM UTC on the 10th of June 2020, the criminal review has concluded. The Court has unanimously found Vedan GUILTY of conspiracy to commit misconduct and is still considering the matter of sentencing. We will announce the sentence as soon as it has been decided upon.
Personal Opinion:
I will personally note that the sentencing deliberations are likely to be prolonged due to a lack of sentencing limits and guidelines for any criminal offences. This is highly unusual for an NS court, especially for lower level crimes such as this one where a regional ban is quite obviously not appropriate or proportional. I would therefore suggest that the assembly implements minimum or maximum punishments each individual crime as soon as is practicable.
Click to expand...
Wymondham said:
The court has unanimously agreed on the following sentence:
Vedan is to be banned from membership of the Regional Guard for 18 months, banned from holding public office for 8 months and shall have their voting rights suspended for 2 months. They may apply to have their Regional Guard ban commuted after 12 months and their ban from public office commuted after 6 months.
Click to expand...
 
Frankender said:
2 questions:
A. What are your thoughts on the guilty verdict in McChimp v. Vedan? I do not see a detailed ruling, and I feel the guilty verdict is not just, especially without a full opinion posted.
B. What would you fundamentally change about the court?
Click to expand...
A. I stand by my verdict, my job as a justice would be to enforce the law, not my personal feelings in the case, by which I mean whether I feel the law as it stands is unfair or ought to make exception, and I did. As the law did not allow for exceptions, with the evidence that was presented, there were no grounds for acquittal. The job of a justice is to enforce the law as it is, not how one thinks it ought to be, especially in a criminal case, you can only work within the law you are given by the assembly, and the law in that case was quite clear. Whether the law ought to have been different was not for me to decide, the job of a justice in a criminal case as I have stated throughout this paragraph is to enforce the law as it is, not how the justice thinks it ought to be,. A full opinion was posted as NR has confirmed.
B. Very little, I would potentially consider supporting single justice hearings in matters of legal interpretation, but that is it.
 
Debussy said:
Why did you resign last time?
Click to expand...
Last time I was only meant to be a temporary replacement to clear a backlog of cases, as the backlog was cleared, I couldnt justify the conflict of interest which I had with the job of clearing the backlog. As I had done my job, and with RL getting busier, I decided to step back
 
I still don't see a full opinion posted, simply a guilty verdict & sentencing.

An opinion outlines why the court ruled a certain way. I don't see that anywhere, unless I am missing something
 
Frankender said:
I still don't see a full opinion posted, simply a guilty verdict & sentencing.

An opinion outlines why the court ruled a certain way. I don't see that anywhere, unless I am missing something
Click to expand...
Ohhh, I see what you mean. That is because the constitution and court procedures do not require that an opinion justifying the verdict be provided in a criminal review, only the verdict itself.
 
Ah, interesting. Thank you for the guidance.

I am a stark advocate of textualism in NS and therefore I will support this appointment!
 
I'm not sure how to feel about this appointment due to Wym's previous resignation from the position but I trust the community and haven't been here for long so sure.
 
Debussy said:
Didn't you resign right after a leak from this assembly from a paper you ran? That should make anyone uneasy.
Click to expand...

Wymondham didn't even bring this up when asked why he resigned:

Wymondham said:
Last time I was only meant to be a temporary replacement to clear a backlog of cases, as the backlog was cleared, I couldnt justify the conflict of interest which I had with the job of clearing the backlog. As I had done my job, and with RL getting busier, I decided to step back
Click to expand...

Is what Debussy says true?
 
Wymondham said:
If I might ask, Manson, why does my previous resignation make you feel uneasy
Click to expand...
Not particularly uneasy, just unsure. You definitely seem qualified but I don't know, I think I'd be assured if someone newer but more active in Laz and law held the position.
 
Debussy said:
Didn't you resign right after a leak from this assembly from a paper you ran? That should make anyone uneasy.
Click to expand...
No I didnt Debussy, that's simply factually incorrect. The NST/Laz incident happened in June 2020, specifically the 19th of June. I had announced my resignation on the 2nd of May, a full month prior, and was waiting for the decision on HEPA proscriptions to be finalised, which took a further month as people were RL busy, I was also waiting on Tubbius to find a replacement. Furthermore, I was just the PR dude; editing, writing and content were not my job, that came under Lewis as CEO, and Llo/Blyat (Depending on who was Chief Content Officer at the time as I cannot remember). That Atlantica took time to finish the judgement (we had been working on it for some days prior if my memory serves), meaning I could finally resign was merely a matter of timing. As those who know me are aware, my RL was in such a difficult place that as soon as I left as justice, I immediately, and I do mean immediately, took a 2 week LoA to address those issues.
 
Last edited:
So to answer Frankender Frankender's question, no, it is not true, I announced my intent to resign over a month before the NST/Lazarus incident. The only reason it took so long was that Tubbius took some time to find a replacement, and Atlantica took some time to write his opinion. My reasoning for resigning throughout was that I had only been asked to do the job until Christmas as a temporary piece of work, as soon as the backlog was cleared there was no need for me to remain, and Atlantica's opinion cleared the backlog, while Tubbius finding a replacement ensured the court would not be paralysed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top