There was a special midterm referendum on the monarchy just a few years ago, with 71% of respondents saying they wanted to keep the monarchy and 60% saying they didn't want it to be a figurehead.  I guess this question will be asked over and over in different ways until it produces the answer that is desired.

Hope Luc and his family are doing okay.

The wiki has been down for a bit over a week.

Thank you for everyone's time.

That's basically the principle of adhering to precedent.  To apply it, I would look at the underlying legal dilemma in a case and determine if a case had been previously decided on the basis of similar or related principles, then attempt to adhere to the same principles in my ruling.

I am not sure what answer I can give you on the question of ex parte communication that will satisfy you.  I intend to abide by precedent, as I have already said many times.  But that doesn't mean I can rule out a future case coming before the cort that addresses the issue, and because of that I can't speak definitively about the future.  The existing rules on the matter in question are G.12.1-3 and D.2.5.1.5-7, so you may look for yourself.  I am not interested in coming up with a code of conduct or anything like that.

I do not agree with the premise of your second question, especially since the quotes make it seem as though you're repeating rather insulting words that I did not, in fact, say.  I am not interested in gratuitously insulting them or anyone else.  And you must already believe that I'll be able to operate on the cort just fine, since you asked me if I'd accept a nomination out of the blue.

My account of the case was the one that was publicly presented.  A potential litigant posted on a private forum about a suit currently in a judge's courtroom.  The judge advised him not to "fall for it."  I understand that Txec hadn't actually read the post, and was just reflexively advising the litigant not to agree to anything I might possibly be saying -- problematic in its own right, but beside the point.  Separately, you posted on a different forum about the case and some of your arguments and how difficult it was for you, to which you testified the judge also replied sympathetically.  My contention at the time was that these were inappropriate communications, but the cort found that no impropriety occurred, unanimously and without qualification, "given the small size of Talossa and the inevitable overlapping of people within public offices."  That was the reason given.  So that's that: the rule is set.

"[C]an you think of a time, in Talossa preferably but in your outside life if you want, that you were wrong about something; and you publicly admitted you were wrong and accepted the consequences?"

Sure.  I once passionately argued that MMP would diminish regional power, but I was just flat-out wrong.  Tafial and Luc explained why.  I saw what they were saying, admitted I was wrong, and moved on.  It's not a big deal.

"To give an example: if a member of the Free Democrats were to be arguing a case before the Cort, would you argue that they should not be allowed to mention the case in the private Free Democrat forum which is read by two CpI justices? As opposed to the voluntary code of conduct which prevails, i.e. that the Justices will not engage with any such thread?"

The precedent was set very firmly.  Absent some suit to the purpose with good reason to reconsider, it seems very clear that all of the practices you mention are completely fine under Talossan law.  Indeed, much much more would probably also be fine, as long as they fell within statutory requirements.

"The Cabinet has a Code of Conduct. Should the CpI have one, and how should it be enforced if so?"

There are already rules for judicial behavior in the law.

Roll it back to the previous version and it should be fixable by disabling the named extension that the error message talks about.

1. I think it will be fine.

For your first example, both the judge and one of the advocates belonged to the same private forum, where the advocate had been presenting arguments and a theory of the case privately, which the judge had been reading.  In my view, this was clearly inappropriate, but the whole Cort ruled very clearly that the practical constraints on our small Talossan community were too great to require recusal.

As to your second, I draw your attention to the post to which you linked:

"You are 100% right that I cannot know V's mind or whether or not it was to the advantage of the FDT to give you a seat. But regardless, you were given a seat by the FDT and V is a member of the FDT and he convened a hearing alone before a judge where he argued unopposed for your sentence to be curtailed. Those are the plain facts. Even if you are sure that there was nothing corrupt at work here, that doesn't mean that next time there won't be."

The cort felt that this was fine too, and now that, too, is precedent (albeit somewhat weaker).

I still think that both practices are not great.  It would have been better if Talossa didn't permit lawyers to argue their cases, unanswered, on private forums.  It would have been better if Talossa didn't permit the Government to revisit prior cases (of political allies or anyone else) and reargue them without opposing counsel.  But a lot of things have changed in Talossa in recent years, and these precedents are set.

2.  I'd feel fine ruling whichever I thought the law inclined.

3.  I do not recall his answers in enough detail to say, unfortunately.  I had no objections to his legal philosophy, however.

4.  They would be superseded, I imagine.

Yes, I read the releases.  I did not study them in detail, but as I recall, they seemed unobjectionable in striving for consistency.

There are many important cases, even with the 2017 culling.  The petition to vacate ESB's conviction established some new principles of Talossan justice.  14-03 (the wiki case) included some of the first precedents regarding privacy and contracts in Talossan law.  And 13-01 established that Talossa was officially a "micronation."

(16) You said that justice is a distinct concept and not merely the "additive result of law and equity". If so, then what is justice and why is it distinct?

Justice is the administration of a system of law according to the best interpretation of the written law through the understood principles of a national system of beliefs.

(17) Does a judge of a court of law (or even a court of equity) have the inherent, assumed, implicit, or perhaps self-evident power to overrule statutory law, the Organic Law, or other parts of the law if in the opinion of that judge it will serve "justice"?

A justice may strike down any statute that contravenes the OrgLaw, and may strike down any provision of the OrgLaw that contravenes the Covenants.  They may not decide to overrule the above with their own judgment.

(18) With respect to the above question: If 'no', then, is there a more appropriate response in Talossa than censure (perhaps impeachment?) when a judge may overrule laws in order to effectuate "justice"? However, if 'yes', please explain.

That sounds pretty situational.

(19) Do you agree with, find tolerable, or otherwise endorse the findings of law of Ián Tamorán, in his official capacity as the presiding judge with respect to Request for Relief re. legality of non-Talossan name? Please explain in depth why or why not.

I haven't looked at the ruling since it was released, but as I recall, I disagreed with the ruling.  It seemed to contradict the use of the word "name" as used in the law, both in principle and even in the explicit text.

(20) What is your personally saddest moment in life outside Talossa that you feel comfortable sharing?

I was caught in the middle of the 2011 Christchurch quake.  The sadness of the situation -- slogging through liquifaction past bloody bodies and drinking trucked-in water -- was mediated by the need to get things done, but that's probably the worst thing I'd care to share.

(21) What is your personally proudest moment in life within Talossa?

Passage of el Lexhatx with unanimous support from both houses of the Ziu, after months of hard work.  I know it won't last forever, since nothing does these days, but it made me happy when it happened.

(22) Would you seek ever to invite Ben Madison back to active Talossan life?

Sure.

(23) Skydiving, or deep-sea exploratory submarine?

I have done neither, yet.

(24) Do you see the Monarchy of Talossa as a positive institution? That is, is Talossa better off, worse off, or the same as a Republic?

It is a positive institution, and it is better to have a Kingdom than a Republic.

(25) With respect to the above question: Does your answer prejudice you either way? If no, why not? If yes, does it follow, then, that you would have an impropriety and good cause for recusal if ever the nature, form, or conditions of the Monarchy laid before you in a case of the Uppermost Cort?

I am sure I am "prejudiced" in the sense that I am positively disposed towards any institution that I think is a good thing.  But I do not think my prejudice in this matter rises to the level that would unduly influence my judgment.  This is especially true in Talossa, which has extraordinarily high standards for recusal.

(26) What may you do, if ultimately confirmed and appointed to a seat of the Uppermost Cort, in order to reform the Judiciary, so that more "enthusiastic amateurs" may become admitted to practice (and enjoy) law in Talossa? Would you seek to collaborate affirmatively with S:reu Marcianüs on this endeavor?

I do not yet have any plans.  I did not plan on being appointed to this position.  I'll be open to suggestions.

(27) Pixar or Marvel?

Pixar.

(28) When have you been the most proud of Talossa's accomplishments?

Reunision.

(29) What may you do, if ultimately confirmed and appointed to a seat of the Uppermost Cort, in order to educate the broader public of Talossa about "the important legal cases in our past"?

Probably just put together a book on the matter, which has been my modus operandi (like with my book on the code of law, before el Lexh).

(30) Do you have a favorite flavor or ice cream? If not, what is a favorite dessert?

I like burnt sugar & butter ice cream.

(31) What may you do, if ultimately confirmed and appointed to a seat of the Uppermost Cort, in order to encourage the development and use of El Glheþ?

I do not yet have any plans for anything when it comes to the position, but off the top of my head, I would probably begin using Talossan for courtroom direction and orders.

(32) What is your estimation on the merits of abolishing the Senäts?

It seems unwise.  There are very few checks on the power of a Cosa majority under current law, and so the minor speedbumps that remain should be retained.

(33) What is your estimation on the merits of making a "real" Cosa, such that there would be 15 seats (instead of 200) and each MC would have one seat (instead of multiple)?

It seems as though that would exclude smaller parties, further consolidating power in the hands of a few.

(34) Have you ever sung the national anthem of Talossa?

No.

(35) Do you deserve to be a judge on the Uppermost Cort? Why or why not?

I'm not sure what "deserve" means in this sense.  The word implies a just reward for merit or service, and that's not really the role of the office.

(1) If you had the opportunity to live in the capital city of any sovereign nation, other than Talossa, which would it be and why?

Washington, D.C.  I love the city and in my extratalossan hours I am a political activist, so it appeals.

(2) What are your views on derivativism versus peculiarism? Is Talossa a sovereign nation, or just a fun little club?

I'm a derivatist.

(3) What are the differences that you understand to exist between law and equity, in the context of justice? Do these differences exist in Talossa?

The law must be equitable in the sense that it applies to everyone equally, but equal application doesn't always result in equitable treatment.  That is to say: a single standard may perpetuate or even exacerbate underlying inequities.  These differences do exist here.

(4) Is "justice" a distinct and separate concept than law and equity? Is it instead the consequential result of law and equity? Maybe neither? Why?

They're all distinct concepts, however related.  I'm not sure I'd say that justice is simply the additive result of law and equity, since there are other factors at work (practicality, for one).

(5) Do you speak Talossan competently? Why or why not?

No.  I was learning very gradually, although I stopped a few months ago, when I lowered my "Talossa time."

(6) Should everyday Talossans make a point to learn the language? Why or why not?

They should try, since it's our greatest cultural treasure.

(7) Should courts of record in Talossa make their proceedings available (whether during proceedings or in translations of their transcrupts) in Talossan? Why or why not?

No.  It's impractical right now, since only two or three people could do that and no one would read them.  Even the law isn't in Talossan yet.

(8) What are your favorite hobbies during freetime?

Writing.

(9) Are you a reader, a writer, a speaker, or a listener?

A writer.

(10) Do you have a favorite podcast to recommend?

In Our Time with Melvin Bragg.

(11) What would be three books, articles, or other such materials that you might recommend to all of Talossa for reading?

Moby Dick by Melville, Pale Fire by Nabokov, and the Strategy of Conflict by Thomas Schelling.

(12) What sort of latitude should a judge exercise in his/her discretion while forming a judgement? Can a judge go "too far"?

The latitude available under the law is the exclusive range of latitude that should be or could be available to a judge.

(13) What is abuse of discretion? How can it be recognized by a lawyer or especially by a layman?

Abuse of discretion is, as I understand it, a judge acting out of turn during proceedings, favoring their own judgment above the facts or the law of a case.  I'm not sure of any obvious method for recognizing it, beyond noticing when a judge mostly cites their own reasoning rather than precedent, law, or argument.

(14) What sort of consequence (other than the extreme of impeachment) should Talossa place on judges who may exercise abuse of discretion, commit plain errors, or otherwise cause a misapplication of the law?

Practically speaking, probably none.  In time, if the judiciary grows sufficiently, then censure from a judicial panel might make sense.  But right now the entire active legal community is like four people.

(15) Whichever such consequences may be placed as in the above question, how should they be undertaken? Administratively, perhaps? But Talossan judges don't earn a salary. Perhaps Talossan judges should face no admonishment for their errors?

Censure.

I'm not sure if I can usefully expand further on the importance of a respect for history, although I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you might have on the topic.

I have been an outspoken opponent to some recent efforts at legal reform, true, because I have thought they had significant problems.  For example, I thought it was probably a bad idea to recreate the magistracy without fixing any of the issues that had led to its original repeal -- it seemed to me that those issues would again be a problem.

I'm not sure I would say that the reformers didn't have a respect for history per se.  A generic criticism of one effort doesn't translate to the blanket judgment of a person.  If I was playing basketball with someone and they threw an elbow, I might call that uncool, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are generally violent.

I'll also note that vocal criticism plays an important role, even when a bill passes anyway.  For example, a bill was just Clarked regarding inactivity on the CpI: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=284.0    It intends to define the "inactivity" for which a justice may be removed from the Cort.  The bill was written and Clarked by the Seneschal, and it seems to have received little or no scrutiny.  That's unfortunate, because it seems to have at least one significant problem with its use of passive voice in the first operative clause: "A Justice of the Cort pü Inalt shall be declared inactive... if the Clerk of Courts ...  is unable to contact that Justice or does not receive any response to their enquiries, within 30 days."  This isn't necessarily a fatal flaw, but the bill and the law would definitely have been improved if someone had pointed out that this doesn't seem to say who gets to do the "declaring."  One might ordinarily assume it's the Clerk, but then that gives them a really easy way to kick judges off the Cort whenever they please -- and that's pretty dramatic.  I assume that the intent here isn't actually to make the Clerk the boss, but then... who gets to make this decision?  The Seneschal who selected the Clerk?

The above is not intended to pick on one slightly sloppy bill, since that sort of flaw can easily be fixed, but we could probably use more vocal opposition, not less.

I don't mean anything much deeper by the phrase than the surface: it is important to know what has happened in the past before trying to help guide the law into the future from the bench.  This principle is admittedly less important these days, since so much has been set aside and done anew, and since it looks likely that trend's going to continue.

I think that the most important qualities for a Talossan jurist are respect for procedure and respect for history.  I am not sure that I am actively cultivating either quality, so to speak, but I do possess an abundance of both.  Procedure makes Talossan law both fair and interesting; the former because it allows for clear expectations and opportunities for fulness of argument, and the latter because it helps give Talossans a reason to be Talossan.

I think that the Talossan Bar will look to the example of judges.  If justices show that they value clear arguments based on principle and precedent, then that is what lawyers will learn to present.  The lawyer class can contribute most of all by simply existing more than they do.  There are almost no active lawyers in the country.

It is certainly a strength that Talossan law is accessible to amateurs, and it should always be thus.  Being able to do Talossan law is one of the fun things to do in Talossa, and so it's good for the country that we allow those who haven't gone to formal law school to be involved right from the start.  There are few activities in which a new Talossan can engage, and so it's important to preserve them where they can be found.