My Perspective of the Firestone Judiciary

Firestone Discussion
1

Yes, I’m somewhat doing this because of what happened during the FDoJ Public Panel if you saw the two “discussions” I did with jefrafra where I was unable to really argue due to me being restricted by FDoJ limitations, as in I have to act professional and not go straight into an argument. But, I’m also doing this as there hasn’t really been a voice for a more stable and less discriminatory judiciary that act like impartialists when they really aren’t, in my own subjective opinion.

Anyways, this is long so bare with me.

I’ll first begin with the Judiciary and how crucial it is to Firestone’s functionality regarding role play.

The Firestone Judiciary constitutionally contains three circuits being the District Court, Appeals Court, and Supreme Court but really it’s only two as Appeals Court is currently pretty much abandoned. Everyone a part of the Judiciary is legally obligated to preside over their respective cases depending on what their court’s jurisdiction permits, obviously the Supreme Court would hold the highest jurisdiction. With this, you can already sense the importance of this vital government branch.

Now here’s who the current Judiciary contains, I’ll accomplish this with literally one screenshot. https://gyazo.com/d8edd26b137215dae8da940153a74aa5 . Now with this, you may or may not already see an issue. This is bound to cause in-group favoritism seeing as the Judiciary is pretty much a small group of individuals. This is supported by the social identity theory where basically, people who have similar social statuses (they’re all justices in this matter) are more inclined to give preferential treatment to each other when in doubt or troubles. With this, there’s already a sign of clear bias which is unethical for anyone a part of this branch of government. Taking into account that most of the justices are friends as well doesn’t help either, it makes it incredibly more likely. Examples of this can be the hate relayed to Innovativemind for sharing his opinions on the Judiciary on his talk show, in which he has the complete right of doing, you can look through previous communications with jef and Innovative, you can find the complete hate there. https://gyazo.com/01904a5dad192bea2df48218572eb65d . Another notable example, granted old but still very relevant, is the treatment towards Skye_Jones during her time as Attorney General where she received a speedy expungement hearing due to just favoritism, there’s no way around it. More information can be found on this thread: The Treatment of Attorney General Skye_Jones - absolute joke

Moving on, is it also imperative that members of the JB refrain from getting involved in any political topics to prevent any risks of bias towards a political opinion or topic. This is blatantly ignored, if you have read the chats of Jefrafra within the official congressional discord you can find numerous examples of bias or one side mentality. Another issue is his tendency to jump into arguments with others which can create a spew of hate and possible prejudice if they’re ever brought to court and have him presiding. It is fine to argue as long as it is civilized and won’t affect any sort of relations he or she may have with the person being argued with and while he could just recuse from a case with the chance of possible bias, having the fact that there are only two other judges, with one being Skye_Jones who has obvious positive relations with jefrafra creates a detrimental effect on how cases are taken. It could hypothetically just cause all cases to go to Dannyboy seeing as he’s the incumbent Chief Justice if bias continues with the other justices.

As mentioned previously, during the Public Panel, jefrafra had clear disapproval of the Justice Department. While everyone has a voice and can state their own subjective or objective opinion, jefrafra quite literally attacked with baseless claims to create a general disapproval of the department itself. I witnessed all of this and Wolf_RBX can attest to the following. During the answering of jefrafra’s questions, he goes out to make claims without sufficient basis and says that the FDoJ is required by the establishment act of this department made in 2017 that they must file cases. He was unable to provide it and simply went off what he recalled of it, but it doesn’t stop there. Progressively, he starts to call out the Attorney General and ignorantly believes that he has failed to fulfill his duties due to his little communication and the aforementioned baseless ‘failing to file cases’ claim. Unless some actual evidence is provided, I’m not believing any one of it. He also continues to make little jabs at the current PR office and the overall communication between offices. He ends it off calling me a bad PR director and exits the stage. This was a complete mess and jefrafra has now risked himself repercussions to this completely wrongful attack with no satisfying basis to support. The only slight piece of evidence I sadly have is this screenshot showing the apparent claim that jefrafra ‘roasted’ me. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/366510236791603200/647961146413809685/unknown.png

Overall, I believe the Judiciary is in need of immediate guidance. It is clear that the Judiciary is a clique, the only individual I believe trying to remain impartial is Dannyboy. I find jefrafra’s actions probably the most deplorable. I most definitely know he understands his limitations as a AJSC but it seems to me that he is going over his respective boundaries. He shouldn’t just feel gratuitous to attack the Justice Department which is a very close department to this government branch. I really can’t comprehend the need for such attack, is it his ego or is it his community standing that simultaneously protects him from backlash, not for this case.

Thank you for reading this, please share your thoughts and remember that I am a Representative so my direct messages are always open to questions, comments, concerns, or legislative suggestions.

8 Likes
2

Indeed I can. Jefrafra made a number of claims in regards to the performance of the Department of Justice, such as the DoJ apparently only filing one case last month, or something along those lines. Now, I don’t know if this is true or not, and I doubt that this is, but it concerns me that a justice involved in cases brought by the DoJ displays this kind of behaviour in public. It’s clear that he is somewhat biased against the DoJ.

Furthermore, he hinted at getting the current Attorney General @1superchris2 impeached for failing to perform his duties.
Quite the opposite, the Attorney General has made a change to DoJ, and he continues to make changes, actually wanting to listen to the opinion of employees, etc. He’s passionate, and I don’t see how he’s a bad thing for the department.

At the end of the day, it does make you think that if one member of the judiciary can behave like this at a public event, then what’s the rest of the judiciary like? In my opinion, it doesn’t make the judiciary look good at all.

7 Likes
3

Finally someone spoke out

14 Likes
4

I actually haven’t taken a criminal case that I can recall since chris has taken over as AG.

Look at the Trello yourself–he has only filed one valid case (and a second one in violation of ex post facto).

This was an event to express concerns and ask questions for the DoJ–I expressed my concerns as I am one of the biggest contributors that built the DoJ.

1 Like
5

I didn’t attack you. I brought up real concerns with statistics, and you refused to address them.

I don’t take criminal cases because I have been very public about the DoJ failing. Please feel free to reference my docket.

Everything I said was based off of fact–please reference the court Trellos if you have any questions.

I called you and your administration out for killing a department I rebranded and built. I did this at an event designed for the public to ask questions and concerns for the Department of Justice. I came prepared and unhappy, and you didn’t like getting put on the spot. Don’t take that out on me.

Also, the appeals court has been legally removed for nearly a year. It concerns me that a member of the DoJ Administration is not aware of this.

1 Like
6

You most definitely did attack the Justice Department, how can you help a department by just blatantly attacking it. You do realize you could’ve just privately DM’ed me, in which I had to do myself seeing as you clearly took advantage of the small audience the public panel event had and spewed out nothing but baseless claims.

Proof of the FDoJ failing? You once again just stated a baseless claim. If you really want to take your concerns you should’ve done it in a more respectful matter instead of just ignorantly arguing with me while I was restricted by my FDoJ limitations, in which I have to act professional to ensure proper representation of the department. On forums, I can and will say what I feel must be addressed. I also find it odd how you particularly chose this time to express your concerns, you never said anything negative to my prior knowledge regarding the FDoJ, it is clear you once again took advantage of the small audience to fulfill your need to attack.

Me asking him for concerns: https://gyazo.com/cd84ac70db4c8abffa77e84a626eb7e7

7 Likes
7

Mans is clearly just politicizing his job, wouldn’t expect him to know anything different though

1 Like
8

I gave Chris a fully comprehensive and detailed explanation of my concerns on October the 9th ( https://i.imgur.com/koyj2r9.png ). No action was taken. You hosted this event with the intent to hear questions and concerns, but are then offended when I bring them up???

For the third time, check the court trellos. It’s blatant that the Department of Justice is failing to file adequate criminal cases in comparison to the amount of submissions they receive. Furthermore, of the cases they do file, they are losing them at a statistically larger amount than previously. This can all be found on the Court Case Submissions Center Trello, The District Court of Firestone Trello, and the Completed Cases Archive Trello. Links to all of these can be found in my chambers.

I don’t have a “need to attack.” I brought up concerns because you invited them. Again, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

1 Like
9

I am completely aware of the removal of the Appeals Court and I inquire, how does that serve as negative? I’m well aware that it is removed, I simply used a more broader term to describe its removal.

2 Likes
10

You literally stated that the appeals court still exists.

1 Like
11

Once again, there’s a obvious line between respectfully giving out your concerns and

looks like I must say that again.

Also, you’re a Supreme Court Justice? Shouldn’t you also represent yourself accordingly rather than act like some stuck up citizen? It’s only in favor of decency that you do so, I find the attack to be unethical and I’m pretty sure everyone can concur on that. You do realize there’s a separate trello, I cannot go into details as it is to be kept classified, but cases remain on there. But, that doesn’t matter, because you legit STILL haven’t provided that establishment act, so I can care less of that bullshit claim you made on filing cases. We most definitely take any cases submitted by citizens, we are doing our job.

Any other concerns are completely baseless, what part is unclear to you? I’m not some punching bag that will take apocryphal claims.

3 Likes
12

I’ll admit, I was lazy and looked at an older version of the constitution, but it seems to me that you’re just trying to find an excuse that I’m not as legally fluent as you. I don’t stay up 24/7 and study Firestone law, sorry.

3 Likes
13

I literally made the separate Trello–of course I know of its existence. That is still not an excuse for the DoJ filing one case in 30 days.

I expressed my concerns through a line of questioning which you did not appropriately address.

I am, in fact, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. That doesn’t mean I waive all my rights as a citizen of the state. I literally built the modern Department of Justice, and I am certainly not going to sit on the sidelines while you all let it shrivel and die.

I represented myself appropriately at the interview. To my recollection, I asked questions based off your answers. I stated that if what you were saying is correct, 1superchris2 is not executing his duties.

The Establishment Act is publicly available on the forums ( Justice Department Recognition Act of 2017 ). You’ll notice that this law delegates the DoJ as the only agency authorized to prosecute criminals, and if the DoJ is NOT doing this, they are both endangering public safety and failing to meet their obligations.

1 Like
14

You keep bringing up the filing cases claim, you finally provided a legislation, but you still yet fail to prove how it is mandated. After a brief look over of this legislative piece, no where does it state that the FDoJ “must file a case”. Are you trying to say that the rate of prosecutions is sluggish? I cannot comprehend what your concern is regarding the State Attorney’s Office. I’m not in charge of that, each Director has their own respective duties, you’d go to who is in charge and express your concerns regarding that. I was never delegated to handle SAO related issues or matter, and I’d like to make that sufficiently clear.

So you’re using your previous standing in this department to justify for your actions? Seems pretty weak to me, you only hurt your beloved department by trying to correct your actions using arrogant excuses. In no where did I say that 1superchris2 should be ‘impeached’ or failing to execute his duties, you took that out of proportions and spewed unnecessary statements during your ‘civil’ concern.

If that’s what the Judiciary calls appropriate, I honestly have no words.

4 Likes
15

I cant really comment regarding the activity of the DoJ yet. But, regarding the mentions of me within this post. I can say many of the things discussed and problems presented are real. I’ve discussed them many times on my show. Whilst I respect the knowledge Jefrafra has, I do not respect the complete lack of respect for judicial impartiality. I have not personally been presided over by Jefra, and frankly hope I never am as I do not trust he’d have an impartial ruling regarding me. He can say it doesn’t extend to the courtroom, and whilst it hasn’t with me. It has with Ftlicious, and i’m sure others I know for a fact I’m not the only one he personally attacks and usually I don’t make mention of it. But, it has gotten to the point that the Court Announcements have been used to attack me personally, as well as others including patchy.

7 Likes
16

I know you’re not one for jokes, but Patchy knows I don’t personally dislike him, and it was an obvious joke.

Please cite one time I have made a case based on personal impartiality and not the rule of law. I can 100% tell you that’s wrong. I always have a legal basis.

1 Like
17

I could name a few cases in which your respective decisions have directly contradicted themselves in your capacity as a SCJ. For example the case regarding freedom of press, and classification in this case you and the SC express that one simply cannot overrule the other, and then proceed to make one overrule the other. If I was on my home computer I keep most of this stuff saved as evidence but until monday I wont be.

5 Likes
18

The Constitution is not more powerful than the Bill of Rights, nor is any section of either of these documents more powerful than another.

When two sections directly conflict each other, it should be the duty of congress to fix. However, if it is brought up in a writ, the courts have to clarify, and generally, we try to go with the option that is least damaging to the state.

That’s not contradictory…it’s basic constitutional law.

1 Like
19

In any event, if you unblocked me I could have your statements for the show, as I do reach out every week to no avail.

1 Like
20

You ask intentionally inflamed questions and then complain when I provide politicized responses. I’m not feeding into a show based on misconstrued facts.

1 Like