Request for Clarification

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
I request that the court review how to proceed on criminal charges that occurred when the previous North Pacific Legal code was in force.

I quote a statement made by the Attorney General Grosseschnauzer:

If the RA decides to approve the current legal code revamp at vote, there would be no criminal statute that could be applied to conduct that predates the adoption of the new Legal Code. To attempt to do so would invoke the provision of the bill of rights against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

I've already had to dismiss two requests from the Delegate to prosecute for violations of the new criminal provision on impersonation of a government official since there is no way to have a trial take place in time prior to the repeal of the old Legal Code. The legislation at vote does not preserve any cause of action under the old legal code to be prosecuted once the new code is adopted, so my hands are tied.
Click to expand...

Is it correct to say that any cause of action under the former legal code can not be processed now due to the passing of a new legal code?

Or would it be more correct to say that these causes of action could be brought under the legal code that existed at the time of the crime in question?

I would appreciate a court ruling on this matter.
 
Points to consider:
1. The legislation adopting the new legal code repealed the old code in its entirety. It only provided for the preservation of the AG as an office, which is a statutory office, and for corrections if needed to the new Code by a different procedure than the old Code provided.
2. Had the Regional Assembly wished to preserve pending criminal cases, it could have provided for that; it chose not to.
3. By repealing the old code in its entirety, as I noted in my quoted statement, it left prior conduct without any criminal sanction that could be applied.
4. The adoption of the new Code with a different formulation to define criminal acts created new crimes. To apply the new criminal code to prior conduct violates the Bill of Rights and its prohibition against ex post facto laws and bill of attainder, it can be argued that it also impairs due process of law since it could not possibly give notice about conduct that was not criminal when the new code was adopted.
5. As a result of the application of the Bill of Rights, I had no choice but to close any requests for indictments.
 
I would urge the court to implement the judicial clause of the Flemingovian constitution, which would cover all judicial matters past, present and future.

TRIALS:
Nah. Don’t work. Never have, never will. All judicial decisions will be referred to Flemingovia.
Click to expand...
 
I would suggest that Associate Justice Bule Wolf II may need to disqualify himself from this matter, for if the Court holds in anyy way that conduct that could be alleged to have been a violation of the law during the time the prior Legal Code was in effect are still valid, it would be necessary for the Attorney General's office to reopen a file on the complaint by Govindia concerning his ejection by Blue Wolf II as Delegate.

In other words, he has a personal interest in the outcome of this matter, and it would be, to put it mildly, inappropriate for him to be participating in deciding this matter.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I would suggest that Associate Justice Bule Wolf II may need to disqualify himself from this matter, for if the Court holds in anyy way that conduct that could be alleged to have been a violation of the law during the time the prior Legal Code was in effect are still valid, it would be necessary for the Attorney General's office to reopen a file on the complaint by Govindia concerning his ejection by Blue Wolf II as Delegate.

In other words, he has a personal interest in the outcome of this matter, and it would be, to put it mildly, inappropriate for him to be participating in deciding this matter.
Click to expand...
The Delegate is concerned that this objection has been issued only now, nearly a week after the presentation of the request for clarification. The Government would like an answer to this question sooner rather than later.
 
psst... if one of the judges has been afk for two weeks and the other might recuse himself, that leaves Hilville talking to himself. :headbang:
 
Eluvatar:
Grosseschnauzer:
I would suggest that Associate Justice Bule Wolf II may need to disqualify himself from this matter, for if the Court holds in anyy way that conduct that could be alleged to have been a violation of the law during the time the prior Legal Code was in effect are still valid, it would be necessary for the Attorney General's office to reopen a file on the complaint by Govindia concerning his ejection by Blue Wolf II as Delegate.

In other words, he has a personal interest in the outcome of this matter, and it would be, to put it mildly, inappropriate for him to be participating in deciding this matter.
Click to expand...
The Delegate is concerned that this objection has been issued only now, nearly a week after the presentation of the request for clarification. The Government would like an answer to this question sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
I was waiting for BW to recognize that the potential for a serious conflict of interest on his part would exist on his own, and in that he hasn't, it was time to say something.
 
I'm feel a bit insulted and in fact will not recluse myself. I deny bringing personal bias or favoritism into this, something, I suspect, that the Dog can't truthfully lay claim to, and firmly believe no Conflict of Interests exist.

It is ultimately Justice Hileville's decision on whether or not a Justice is in Conflict. If he decides I am and appoints a Temporary Justice then so be it. Until that time I will serve in my elected capacity and give my unbiased ruling.
 
While it is challenging to disagree with schnauzers on legal matters, I am going to give it a shot.

First, on the question of whether charges can be brought under the old legal code, it would be wholly impractical not to allow it. The RA, on the whole, was unaware of the need to include language to preserve it. Legalization of everything that occurred before the new bill's passage was never the intent of the RA. As such, I think it is fair for the court to rule that with respect to the new code, the saving clause was presumed.

Second, regarding judicial recusal, there have been no charges entered against BW. Just because the AG may be contemplating an indictment, it isn't enough cause to remove him from the bench. Why, schnauzers often seems to be engaged some kind of action against BW. That alone isn't sufficient cause for a recusal.

Besides, the question at hand is much larger than any single criminal complaint. It affects crimes which may have been committed against BW - or anyone else - as well. The court's decision in this matter can set a precedent regarding the presumption of a saving clause. Will common sense prevail? Or does the entire RA have to pass a bar exam before we can draft a decent piece of legislation?

And, most importantly, we have a tradition of trusting the RA to select judges based on their integrity. It is the most important qualification. It is up to the individual judge to decide if he can fairly consider the question and render an impartial decision. Since BW has stated that he can be impartial in this matter, I am in no position to call him a liar.
 
Great Bights Mum:
While it is challenging to disagree with schnauzers on legal matters, I am going to give it a shot.

First, on the question of whether charges can be brought under the old legal code, it would be wholly impractical not to allow it. The RA, on the whole, was unaware of the need to include language to preserve it. Legalization of everything that occurred before the new bill's passage was never the intent of the RA. As such, I think it is fair for the court to rule that with respect to the new code, the saving clause was presumed.

Second, regarding judicial recusal, there have been no charges entered against BW. Just because the AG may be contemplating an indictment, it isn't enough cause to remove him from the bench. Why, schnauzers often seems to be engaged some kind of action against BW. That alone isn't sufficient cause for a recusal.

Besides, the question at hand is much larger than any single criminal complaint. It affects crimes which may have been committed against BW - or anyone else - as well. The court's decision in this matter can set a precedent regarding the presumption of a saving clause. Will common sense prevail? Or does the entire RA have to pass a bar exam before we can draft a decent piece of legislation?

And, most importantly, we have a tradition of trusting the RA to select judges based on their integrity. It is the most important qualification. It is up to the individual judge to decide if he can fairly consider the question and render an impartial decision. Since BW has stated that he can be impartial in this matter, I am in no position to call him a liar.
Click to expand...
:tb2:

You have a way with words GBM. I completely concur.
 
Well let me get of my ass as my fellow Justice says so this is how we are going to conduct our selves in court I can see where this is going but you have my support and no need to recluse yourself so now get of your ass and lets move on to more pressing matters.
 
Since I am the Chief Justice and i do appreciate others trying to do my job for me I figured I might as well comment on this now in public. I do believe that Blue Wolf II is taking this matter into consideration completely impartially and will not need to recluse himself.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the request for review made by mcmasterdonia on how to proceed with Criminal Acts that occurred under the previous Legal Code.​

The Court believes that the integrity of the region must be kept in tact and in order to do so it is vital that any crime committed underneath a previous version of the legal code still be allowed to brought in front of this Court. The Court would also like to address the following comments made by the Attorney General:

If the RA decides to approve the current legal code revamp at vote, there would be no criminal statute that could be applied to conduct that predates the adoption of the new Legal Code. To attempt to do so would invoke the provision of the bill of rights against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

I've already had to dismiss two requests from the Delegate to prosecute for violations of the new criminal provision on impersonation of a government official since there is no way to have a trial take place in time prior to the repeal of the old Legal Code. The legislation at vote does not preserve any cause of action under the old legal code to be prosecuted once the new code is adopted, so my hands are tied.
Click to expand...

The Court recognizes the Attorney General's concern for ex post facto law being applied but this simply isn't the case. When crimes were committed under the old legal code it was against said code to commit whatever act had been committed. Ex post facto law applies to a crime committed and a law being enacted after that crime to make an illegal act. This clearly is not the case in this matter.

1. The legislation adopting the new legal code repealed the old code in its entirety. It only provided for the preservation of the AG as an office, which is a statutory office, and for corrections if needed to the new Code by a different procedure than the old Code provided.
2. Had the Regional Assembly wished to preserve pending criminal cases, it could have provided for that; it chose not to.
3. By repealing the old code in its entirety, as I noted in my quoted statement, it left prior conduct without any criminal sanction that could be applied.
4. The adoption of the new Code with a different formulation to define criminal acts created new crimes. To apply the new criminal code to prior conduct violates the Bill of Rights and its prohibition against ex post facto laws and bill of attainder, it can be argued that it also impairs due process of law since it could not possibly give notice about conduct that was not criminal when the new code was adopted.
5. As a result of the application of the Bill of Rights, I had no choice but to close any requests for indictments.
Click to expand...

This Court believes the Attorney General is completely incorrect in all of the above statements with the exception of number 1 which is a statement of fact. As far as point 2 goes it is outrageous for the Attorney General to believe that this is the case and the Court is even more disturbed by the fact that the Attorney General did not bring this up during the drafting of the new Legal Code.

It is also the opinion of the Court that in the future if a situation like this arises the office of the Attorney General should consult the Court on the matter and not take it upon themselves to make a ruling on said matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top