#Judicature

[francepittoresque]

12 décembre 1604 : Henri IV instaure la « Paulette » ➽ https://bit.ly/Paulette-HenriIV Un arrêt du roi Henri IV suivant lequel les officiers de finance et de judicature devenaient propriétaires de leurs charges, en payant chaque année la « paulette ». Dévoyé sous les gouvernements successifs, ce système conduisit à l’émergence d’une magistrature dépourvue d’intégrité

[beautiful-basque-country]

Leftist Spaniards: We have the Spanish judiciary completely exploited to make politics from the judicature instead of the Congress, it's infuriating and ILLEGAL!!!

Basque people:

[dalliansss]

On an irl note—

I passed my Pre-Judicature Program!

I can now apply to be a magistrate!

[ask-cyno]

AIR JAIL FOR STEVE

HE TRIED TO EAT MY NECK! AIR JAILED!

also “‘that’s a sharp knife be careful with it’- stabby stabby” and then laugh like i was on something i shouldn’t be on

Steve did nothing wrong, let him go! And I speak that as a judicature for justice!

[alynnl]

Is OC creation just a natural part of being in the Ace Attorney fandom? Because if I think about it, I’ve imagined A Character for every installment of the series.

The OG trilogy: My self insert who’s a crime scene photographer that works with Gumshoe and Edgeworth

Investigations 1: Jay Walker, retired detective turned car mechanic (Gumshoe’s mentor)

Investigations 2: (postgame) Meili Lin, future President of Zheng Fa (Agent Lang’s new boss, Late President Huang’s friend and fellow statesman)

AA 4: Erik van Zieks, prosecutor, piano player and descendant of Barok van Zieks (Klavier Gavin’s classmate, friend of Sebastian Debeste)

Great Ace Attorney Chronicles: Cosmo Morandi, young Italian stage magician and defendant in a case

Great Ace Attorney Chronicles: Hideki Jigoku, prosecutor in Japan’s Supreme Court of Judicature (eldest son of Seishiro Jigoku)

[thecrystalcrux]

High And Low Fantasy

In November of 1193, despite Rome’s objections, the emperor assigned a Spanish caballero, Pero de Alava, to be the judicature of affairs in and around the Italian fortress guarding and taxing the bridge over the Volturno River in Capua. It was Pero’s first imperial commission. The Spaniard didn’t know it then, but he was a pawn being strategically injected into the heart of an evolving…

[theworstfoundingfathers]

Who is the worst? Round 1: Josiah Bartlett vs Samuel Adams

Josiah Bartlett (December 2, 1729 [O.S. November 21, 1729] – May 19, 1795) was an American Founding Father, physician, statesman, a delegate to the Continental Congress for New Hampshire, and a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. He served as the first governor of New Hampshire and chief justice of the New Hampshire Superior Court of Judicature.

On January 15, 1754, he married Mary Bartlett of Newton, New Hampshire. She was his cousin, the daughter of his uncle, Joseph.

The Bartlett family seems to have owned several slaves, and there are references to tracking down runaway slaves in Bartlett's correspondence.

Samuel Adams (September 27 [O.S. September 16] 1722 – October 2, 1803) was an American statesman, political philosopher, and a Founding Father of the United States. He was a politician in colonial Massachusetts, a leader of the movement that became the American Revolution, and one of the architects of the principles of American republicanism that shaped the political culture of the United States. He was a second cousin to his fellow Founding Father, President John Adams.

His 1768 Massachusetts Circular Letter calling for colonial non-cooperation prompted the occupation of Boston by British soldiers, eventually resulting in the Boston Massacre of 1770.

Accounts written in the 19th century praised him as someone who had been steering his fellow colonists towards independence long before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. This view was challenged by negative assessments of Adams in the first half of the 20th century, mostly by British historians, in which he was portrayed as a master of propaganda who provoked "mob violence" to achieve his goals. However, according to biographer Mark Puls, a different account emerges upon examination of Adams' many writings regarding the civil rights of the colonists, while the "mob" referred to were a highly reflective group of men inspired by Adams who made his case with reasoned arguments in pamphlets and newspapers, without the use of emotional rhetoric.

[kikiofthevast]

New Crossover Project: Sign of the Turnabout

On a visit to America, upon invitation from Nikolina Pavlova, Ryunosuke Naruhodo and his companions encounter a peculiar case, which at first glance seems to be a simple murder. As they wrestle answers to countless questions out of the defendant, Arthur Lester, they'll get wrapped up in something they had no way of predicting. Except, of course, for the great detective Sherlock Holmes.

Yes this is a DGS and Malevolent podcast crossover! Knowledge of at least one of the mediums is ideal, but unnecessary. The fic will explore characters and their relationships in canon, and the only thing that I would warn of is spoilers for both mediums. I will attempt to keep Malevolent spoilers to a minimum, but as this takes place post-DGS2, if you are planning to play the Great Ace Attorney Chronicles and wish to do so blind, please do that before engaging with this post/fic.

With that said, a rundown of our cast of characters:

Ryunosuke Naruhodo, English student-turned-lawyer. For the last few years, he's been working in Japan to ease the turmoil of losing the High Chief Justice as a law student and practicing defense attorney in the Supreme Court of Judicature. He's visiting London (and traveling to America) for a vacation and in order to reconnect with his friends and have a relaxing time in a foreign land.

Susato Mikotoba, judicial assistant to the defense. She works with Ryunosuke in court under the guise of being his distant cousin from the country, Ryutaro Naruhodo. She is traveling with Ryunosuke to London and with the rest of them to America in order to visit Nikolina and resolve what happened on the SS Burya five years beforehand.

Kazuma Asogi, minted prosecutor in the British court of law. He works with Lord Barok van Zieks in order to prosecute cases of murder and theft and to cut to the truth of any matter with the sabre he carries on his belt. His katana, Karuma, has been entrusted to Ryunosuke in their time apart. In the five years that have passed, he has attempted to ease the turmoil in his heart and mind and not let his emotions blind him to the truth.

Lord Barok van Zieks, notorious prosecutor of the Old Bailey Courthouse. He works with Kazuma Asogi in a shared office. A member of British nobility, he has spent the last years coming to terms with the truth of his brother's death and his misplaced prejudice as a result. He travels with Kazuma to America due to Kazuma's insistence that he needs to get out more.

Sherlock Holmes, consulting detective at Scotland Yard and star of many published novels of the same name. Seeking stimulation and taking advantage of the trip to America, Holmes is seeking to explore cult activity across the area they plan to visit, mostly around New York City. In the absence of Yujin, his partner, he seeks to travel with Ryunosuke and Iris, as well as the rest of the crew.

Iris Watson, biographer and inventor. Now 15, her inventions have become all the more elaborate and complex, and her stories have become all the grimmer. With a blooming interest in the macabre world of forensics, she gives her guardian many a headache.

Nikolina Pavlova, current member of the Canary Circus and previously prima ballerina in Moscow. After doing odd jobs in New York City, she found a home in the circus when entertainment became an important part of people’s lives. She’s a trapeze artist alongside Nick Orson, and has found a second family in the circus.

Arthur Lester, private investigator. He and his partner Peter Yang have been chasing down cult activity in order to determine the origin of John Doe, the voice with possession of Arthur's eyes, left hand, and right foot. He's been dipping his toes into the world of the supernatural, but gets a cryptic warning from a man, telling him that he's being watched, before the man is killed right before his eyes.

John Doe, recently embodied entity. He's technically a piece of something bigger, something greater, and something angry that its missing piece is running around with a private detective. John has a fondness for the recent movie craze, as well as recently created cartoons.

Peter "Parker" Yang, private detective. He and Arthur are Very Close, and while Parker is happy to tell how he met, he's not exactly forthcoming with the real reason he and Arthur are in New York City, which is to find the truth about John. Of course, the truth is closer than they expected.

Dr. William Dyer, a professor at Miskatonic University. He's been investigating [REDACTED] and is in New York for [REDACTED]. He was shot dead outside of Canary Circus in the middle of a conversation with the defendant.

And of course, some OCs to move the plot along!

Detective Nancy Spade, a green private investigator who has been investigating Yang & Lester for a while now, and who was hired by a woman concerned that Yang & Lester didn’t resolve the case she hired them for. She’s very new to the world of private investigation! And she has no idea what she’s getting herself into…. (Name source: Nancy Drew and Sam Spade, both fictional detectives)

Abby Nossey, a current patron of the Golden Hour hotel. She has a penchant for knowing exactly what’s going on at any given time, and she moves very fast for a middle-aged woman. She resides on the same floor as Yang & Lester and the British Law Squad. (Name source: play on “a bit nosy”)

Donna Byrd, witness to the crime and member of the Canary Circus. She's a very excitable woman, but very easily startled and flighty. While a cooperative witness, she seems awfully eager to point the blame at this man that she's never met. Not to mention, she's never met either the victim or the defendant before...but she seems to know more about this situation than she's letting on. (Name source: Donna Strickland [famous physicist] and Richard Byrd [famous explorer]. Also "bird" would be a play on her nature.)

Linus McClintock, ringmaster of the Canary Circus. He cofounded it with Donna and knows her very well. Hired Nikolina on the spot and cares for her like a daughter. Is also very cooperative with the investigation, but doesn't know the man that the Team saw in the tent before. (Name source: Linus Pauling [chemist and educator] and Barbara McClintock [cytogeneticist]. Also based very lightly on Diane McClintock from Bioshock.)

Scout Goldenrod, a frequent patron of the Canary Circus and a friend of Donna's. He's a very nervous man, and tends to play with the charm in his pocket to ease his nerves. He's a pianist at one of the local bars and has a lot of free time. He spoke to Donna before the circus started, and they seem to be very close friends. (Name source: "Scout" is a name meaning loyalty and "Goldenrod" is a yellow flower.)

Nick Orsen, a trapeze artist and friend to Nikolina. He's not that important to the plot, but he's here and he's very friendly with the investigation team. (Name source: An "Americanization" of Nikola Orsinov, the ringmaster mannequin from The Magnus Archives.)

Potential Prosecutor Pending, but I may just end up using Kazuma or van Zieks. If you have ideas for an American prosecutor, please let me know.

Also will feature some cameo characters from Newsies and BATIM just because I'm silly like that.

[alphaman99]

Lakshmi Kapoor

“Judges ought to remember that their office is jus dicere, and not jus dare—to interpret law, and not to make law, or give law.”

~Francis Bacon, "Essay LVI: Of Judicature", Essays (1625)

[the-quotable-alberta-hansard]

December 7, 2022

Ms Phillips: Bankes and Olszynski, which my friend from Edmonton-Rutherford tabled earlier this afternoon, go into some detail on this, and I’ll quote from it. “Grounded in the judicature provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867” – and just, you know, to open a bracket here, we’ve heard the Premier variously go on and on about the founders, as if we live in America, and the integrity of our foundational documents, which is of course the Constitution Act of 1982 brought in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but she overlooks that because the rhetorical flourish makes, I guess, her feel better about what she’s about to do

[themathomhouse]

So I tried to track down the Court of Probate Act 1857, which was what the consultation listed as the source of their statutory duty to retain copies of all probate documents. I don't currently have access to westlaw or LexisNexis, so I contacted a friend who does.

Y'all the consultation was wrong about the legislation which covers their duties. I went back to check it because my friend told me it had been repealed and replaced, and they changed the information on the consultation.

They're the ministry of justice?? They got the legislation wrong??? Seriously is this run by clowns????

So anyway the actual legislation to look at to see what duties exist to maintain the archive of probate documents is the Senior Courts Act 1981, sections 124 - 126. That legislation is available here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54/contents

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.