Discussion: Mcmasterdonia's request for clarification

Hileville

Hileville

TNPer
TNP Nation
Hileville
Discord
Dennrick#0489
I figured this would come up. I don't believe Grosse is correct. If you committed a crime under the old legal code you can still be tried under it.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Well that depends, is this considered a whole new Constitution or just a revamp of the old one?
Click to expand...
The Constitution didn't change yet it was just the revamped version of the legal code that passed.
 
So now it seems Grosse is accusing me of personal bias or some bullshit and demanding I recluse myself from this matter, which I currently refuse to do because his claim is retarded.

Ironically, FALCONKATS, who has not posted here, posted in that thread and agreed with Grosse and also asked for me to step away from this ruling. You can't make this shit up.

Hileville, you're the one who makes the determination of Conflict of Interests, if you feel like I am in conflict, appoint a temporary Justice. If not, lets proceed and get this over with.
 
I will make a post in the.request threads when I get home. You are fine BW.and.can continue to serve. I will give Falconkats 24 hours until I appoint someone to replace him on this case.
 
i am Here just had some pressing issues but now back with both eyes open BW yes the Chief Justice rules if their is a conflict of interest and sometimes to have cases process if you recluse yourself voluntary
 
Considering the Dog assumes I will rule against McMaster's interpretation and thus prevent myself from being open to the Dog's silly attempted prosecution when, in fact, I am doing the opposite, I would say you both are talking out of your asses and don't know what you're saying.

If you'd like I can change my opinion just to piss the both of you off, would that be better? :P
 
I'll take that as a "no".

Oh, that reminds me. Are you actually going to contribute to this ruling, Fal, or just bitch about my presence in this court?
 
First of all i do not need you telling me when to give my ruling and by the way if this the way we are going to talk in open court well let me get off my ass and say the your fat ass do not need to recluse yourself
 
In all seriousness Falconkats you really do need to give your opinion on this. I do not like to take forever on decisions and that seems to be becoming the trend. The two of you need to stop your bickering. If you can't work together than one of you needs to resign. I am not going to put up with this on every ruling we as a Court need to make.
 
That isn't the matter at hand. The matter at hand is whether or not there can be charges brought on someone from the old legal code that just got replaced. BW and I are in agreement that charges can be brought on those who committed crimes during the time where the old legal code was still in force.
 
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