For the Attorney General

Due to the recent Court ruling found here, I respectfully request that the current Attorney General reopen the following threads/cases that were previously denied prosecution on the basis that the Attorney General didn't think they were worthy for one reason or another:

Tyler versus Camwood
Blue Wolf -- Eluvatar
Madjack - Govindia
Flemingovia versus Romanoffia and Govindia
Astarial complaint against Empire of Narnia
Mallorea and Riva and Prince Windsor
-T-h-o-r- and Sheep Face

The Attorney General's cooperation in this matter, in light of the recent Court order, is greatly appreciated.

Request denied.

I do not recognize the illegal Court order and I will no longer take any action pending a special election for a successor.

Since I was never provided for any opportunity to even submit any thing that led to this "order," I contend that the Court violated my rights as a citizen of The North Pacific, and is directing me to violate my oath of office. I shall not voluntarily do so.

As soon as a special election is held for a successor, I shall resign in protest.

In what manner is the Court ruling illegal?

I contend that the Court violated my rights as a citizen of The North Pacific

Click to expand...

Your Constitutionally defined duties as Attorney General are by no means a "right". Indeed, the position of the Attorney General is not even mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

I do think it's odd the court never spoke up about something that's been common practice for like half a decade in TNP. >_<

We should be ingraining it the law the duty of the AG to choose whether a trial is merited -- that's something that's kept our courts from being clogged with frivolous suits. It's also something that AG's in RL have to do -all the time-.

I've been asked to run on my "Anti-Gov Platform" to replace Grosse, but I refuse to do that under this context; (1) no-one has the time to see through all the insane suits that are made every week through the trial process -- most AG's barely have enough time to see legitimate cases through the trial process, (2) I want to respect Grosse's protest resignation.

It is requiring that I violate the Bill of Rights by filing indictments against Nations where there has not been a violation of TNP law, or when there is no evidence whatsoever, and that I not act in good faith in executing my office.
The Court's "procedure" is not authorized by any law or provisions, and there is nothing to show that the Court can impose procedures on matters that have not been filed with the Court, and violates the constitution's delegation of rulemaking for the Attorney General to the Attorney General.
And by your participation in a matter in which you, Blue Wolf, have a conflict of interest, since you seek to control who and how a matter in which you have a personal interest in to be handled.
But as I said, I will resign upon the special election of a successor, and have asked that the special election be called for that purpose. I believe the Court has overstepped its powers, and until the Regional Assembly resolves that question,my position is a reasonable view of the entire matter.

I have just sent to the Delegate, the Speaker, and the Chief Justice, the following message:

I have given public notice that upon the special election of a successor, I shall resign as Attorney General.
Accordingly, I am sending this message to the Delegate, the Speaker, and the Chief Justice, to call an immediate special election for that purpose.
[me]

Click to expand...

unibot:

I do think it's odd the court never spoke up about something that's been common practice for like half a decade in TNP. >_<

Click to expand...

It's never been common practice and has never been used in such a way that the Attorney General attempted to use it. I would be interested to see what cases, other than those the current AG just recently "ruled" on, lead you to believe this was common practice under this Constitution.

But as I said, I will resign upon the special election of a successor, and have asked that the special election be called for that purpose

Click to expand...

This is literally impossible under the law and a Catch 22 statement. The elections can not occur until there is a vacancy in the office, a vacancy Gross will not agree to unless an election for his position is held first. Can not occur.

I feel like people are always going after you.

There is nothing in the new legal code about when a resignation has to take effect in order to trigger a special election.
Likewise, there is noting in the new legal code as to designation of an acting attorney general pending an special election in case of a vacancy.
Therefore, my methodology is sound since it does not assume that the legal code specifies any particular time (unlike abandonment which is two weeks) and avoids the need of an acting Attorney General since there would not be a need for one.

Grosse there is nothing legal in what you're doing.

Instead, you are deciding what is and is not correct sans any authority to do so. The court has the authority to rule whether or not the AG must prosecute all cases, you - as they have ruled - do not have the authority to decide what is prosecutable or not.

At least you're doing the right thing and resigning.

EDIT: BW - I think you may have been a bit overzealous to think Grosse would reopen the cases. Grosse has made his point clear, his opinion and his alone matters in these cases. I am glad the court has ruled otherwise.

Yeah, you're right, it was silly of me to think Gross would actually do his job. What a stupid thing to assume.

punk d, i disagree with you, and I think the way I am resigning is totally within current law.
Try reading what is actually there now. Which is what I did. And I stayed completely within the legal code as it says now.
Second, I believe I acted properly and within my duty and obligation as Attorney General. Your dissent on that is political, not legal. Blue Wolf has been routinely politicizing everything because he fears that when the time does come that he seeks to pull off a coup of TNP, he wants anyone in opposition to him as politically weakened as possible.

Which explains better than anything some of his strange political alliances during Eluvatar's term as Delegate.

Yeah, he's not out of order, you're out of order! This whole courtroom is out of order! I AM THE LAW!

which explains better than anything some of his strange political alliances during Eluvatar's term as Delegate.

Click to expand...

Would you care to explain this statement because I have no idea what you're talking about, which is probably a bad thing considering you're talking about me...and I'm just totally lost. Please, do continue kind sir.

This may be a bit off topic, but it is related to the issue of precedent and how laws have been applied in the past (which is important if we are to maintain original intent of a law) as Unibot essentially indicated earlier here.

Simply require judges to write and opinion in relation to their decisions in which they can cite principles of earlier case decisions (which is essentially the basic element of Common Law in practice).

There has never been a request for a ruling on a matter such as this, so there is no prior case to be cited. We've had cases before which have overturned prior ruling in the law, so to require us to always cite what another Court thought the law might be interpreted as years ago is, to be blunt, rather stupid.

Nah, not really. Citing previous court cases to support or deny a certain decision is actually good because it give justices a good footing when making a decision on a case that will by nature differ from all other similar cases.

What I mean by that is 'original intent' generally narrows the focus on any given case as does precedent in any form. It removes a lot of superfluous and often totally irrelevant arguments in making, defending, prosecuting and adjudicating cases.

The general result is that you cannot apply a law intended to promote free speech to silence free speech, for example.

The general result is that you cannot apply a law intended to promote free speech to silence free speech, for example.

Click to expand...

Except in this case the ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the bill of rights, it was all about the Constitution. The only person claiming it was a Bill of Rights matter is Gross, who has yet to actually cite how specifically its a Bill of Rights matter, instead preferring vague generalizations.

"This ruling violates the Bill of Rights" "Ok, how?" "By violating my rights" "Which rights?" "My rights" Yeah, not helpful.

Also, we're obviously not going to be able to cite a previous ruling in every case. To assume that every matter in the Constitution/Bill of Rights already has some legal opinion written about it is both untrue and rather foolish.