A Concerned Citizen's Concern

Tim

Tim

TNPer
After seeing recent events in the Judicial Area I'd like to request a Court Ruling.

Is the Attorney General legally allowed to refuse a case?

Thanks,
A Concerned Citizen
 
Can I suggest that this is actually answered by the justices, rather than other concerned citizens throwing in their :2c:
 
Of course my opinion does not carry the same weight as a Justice but I would think the AG has the discretion to refuse to prosecute.

I would love to see the courts view on the matter.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Tim on the Attorney General Refusing to bring Trials to the Court​

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

Section 3.1: The Attorney General
2. The Attorney General will be elected during Judicial Elections.
3. The Attorney General must not have been convicted of any crime in the North Pacific.
4. The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.
5. It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting.
6. If the original Attorney General is unable to complete a pending case, the successor Attorney General will take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings.
7. The Attorney General may request expedited judicial review of any executive action by any official.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the Oath of Office for all Government Officials of the North Pacific:

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

As per the Legal Code it is the duty of the Attorney General to serve as the Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific. Currently all cases are brought to the Attorney General in order for their office to bring the charges directly to the Court. The refusal of bringing a case to Trial is not a duty given to the Attorney General in any legal document of the North Pacific including but not limited to the Constitution, Legal Code, or Bill of Rights. It is the belief of the Court that there is a fundamental issue with how the process currently works. Currently it is the belief of the Court that the Attorney General in refusing to take a case to trial is acting as a higher authority then what they are. While the Attorney General may not feel there is enough evidence to merit a trial it is still the belief of the Court that the decision on whether there is enough evidence should reside with said Court and not the Office of the Attorney General.

The Court suggests the following procedures be adopted for all trial proceedings:

1. The accuser files a complaint with the Attorney General.
2. The Attorney General Notifies the Defendant that a complaint has been filed against them.
3. Within 72 hours from the time the complaint is filed with the office of the Attorney General the Court shall be notified of the investigation into the matter by the Attorney General.
4. The investigation shall last no more than 5 days in which the Attorney General must ask for an indictment and present all evidence to the Court.
5. Within 72 hours for the request for an indictment the Court will determine if a Trial is merited based on the evidence alone.
6. Normal trial proceedings will begin at this point in time.
 
Thank you. Just so that we are clear, will this ruling apply to complaints already before the attorney General, or will it only apply to future complaints made?
 
What would the Court suggest could be an appropriate procedure if the Attorney General does not act within 72 hours??
 
Presumably the court would expect the Attorney General to bring a prosecution against the Attorn......

No....

Wait......
 
I cannot be required to file a complaint that I in good faith do not believe is capable of being prosecuted legally. Such a direction on the part of the Court violates my obligation under my oath of office and the Bill of Rights in that it directs me to violate the protections of the Bill of Rights.

This I shall not do. Unless the Constitution or Legal Code is amended to require such a process, I shall not honor it.

I give notice, that upon the special election of a successor, I shall resign in protest of this unwarranted requirement that I violate my oath of office pursuant to an illlegal Court order.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
This I shall not do. Unless the Constitution or Legal Code is amended to require such a process, I shall not honor it.
Click to expand...
It is in the description of your duties to prosecute cases, there is nothing in the description that states you are allowed not to prosecute and to do so would go against the stated duties of the Attorney General. There is no need for a Constitutional nor Legal Code amendment, its already spelled out.

I give notice, that upon the special election of a successor, I shall resign in protest of this unwarranted requirement that I violate my oath of office pursuant to an illlegal Court order.
Click to expand...

By all means, if you refuse to preform your duties as Constitutionally defined and re-stated by the Court then you are all too welcome to resign.
 
Just a clarification in case it was not clear to those who read the Court Ruling. The method for handling cases was not officially adopted by this Court and is not in effect. This was a mere suggestion to the Regional Assembly for a possible reform in the way cases are handled by the Court and Office of the Attorney General.

I want to be clear here that this Court HAS NOT adopted new rules nor do we plan to do so at this time.

Thank You,

Hileville
Chief Justice of the North Pacific
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top