Advisory Opinion: Responsibilities and Duties of the Attorney General

[Gaspo]

Advisory Opinion of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the events occurring in the course of The North Pacific v. Unibot​

Given recent actions taken by the Attorney General, which sought to bypass the judicial fact-finding process and undermine the authority conferred upon this Court by the Constitution and Legal Code, the Justices of the Court feel compelled to issue this Advisory Opinion. It will have three main elements: it will clearly define what the responsibilities of the Attorney General are under the law (as there seems to be some lack of understanding within the current AG's office on this point), it will identify what the Court believes to be the unacceptable actions taken by Attorney General Punk D, and it will convey a strong recommendation to the Delegate for actions to be taken in response.

Looking first to the role of the Attorney General, the Law is quite clear.

. . .
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.
. . .

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear . . . 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 . . . within the restraints of my legally granted power. . . .

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code.

These elements of the law quite clearly establish that, in accordance with the decisions of this Court, the Attorney General must bring to before the Court all criminal complaints filed with the AG's office. The Justices then make findings of plausibility based on the evidence associated with the complaint. The basic theory is that, if the evidence contained in the complaint were proven to be true, then the person would be guilty of the charged crime. If it's plausible, the indictment proceeds to court, at which point Legal Code 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 govern the AG's actions. He is to serve as Chief Prosecutor (though he is generally allowed to appoint Deputies and supervise their work), and is to see to completion any proceeding they are doing. It is of note that in all of these proceedings, the AG represents the Region; he effectively represents the region's laws in criminal matters, seeking to enforce them where the justices have seen cause for a trial.

So, the Attorney General must prosecute all criminal trials, and see them through to their completion. But how? Can he simply choose how aggressively or competently, or to what extent, he will prosecute each case? No, he cannot. He is bound by his Oath to do exercise his powers and rights in a way that avoids "misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance". This requires the Attorney General to execute his duties to the fullest of his abilities, lest he commit nonfeasance. He must do so regardless of his personal opinions, lest he commit misfeasance. And he must do so in accordance, at all times, with the law, lest he commit malfeasance.

One final note, before we move on to a discussion of the current Attorney General's actions. The Constitution expressly reserves for the Courts, the power to decide all questions of law, or questions of fact as examined through legal proceeding. No other governmental entity is granted such power. This express reservation, under current law and Court rulings, does not grant the Attorney General discretion in either which cases he prosecutes, or the degree of professionalism and zeal with which he prosecutes those cases. The Attorney General is an advocate; a Prosecutor. He speaks for the People and the Region of the North Pacific, in defense of their laws and their government's policies. He ought not judge, nor act based on personal opinion; that is not his prerogative.

This brings us to Punk D. It is the opinion of this Court that he has failed to meet these requirements as outlined by law, and by the Oath he willingly took. In TNP v. Unibot, Punk D indicated a clear intention to willfully abstain from submitting any evidence, effectively foregoing his duty to represent The North Pacific, based on his personal opinion. He explicitly stated his intention to exercise discretion he does not lawfully possess, and to purposefully cause the failure of a case which he is duty-bound to see to completion, to the fullest of his abilities. When confronted regarding these issues, the Attorney General remained defiant, and went so far as to submit one piece of evidence. This was done in response to the Court's stated intent to dismiss the case without the attachment of jeopardy. The Attorney General responded by attempting to force the Court to attach jeopardy at the 11th hour. Ironically enough, the Attorney General's attempt to out-maneuver the Court was foiled by a basic arithmetic error, as he failed to take this action until 23 hours after the close of discovery.

The Court is deeply concerned by the Attorney General's actions in this case. He attempted to force the Court to dismiss this case and bar it from ever being brought, based on no finding of fact, and instead his own opinion. This is not permissible under his own Oath, under the Legal Code, or under the Constitution. As a government official, Punk D may not disregard any of those documents; he has quite clearly done so here. It is not within the power of this court to compel action except as a result of a trial proceeding, however. We find no substantive law, however, which bars us from issuing a condemnation of a government official's actions, and strongly urging the Delegate to immediately request the resignation of the Attorney General, in conjunction with launching an investigation into the extent of this type of behavior within the Attorney General's office. The Court's ability to effectively apply the laws of The North Pacific is deeply undermined if the Attorney General cannot be relied upon to steadfastly carry out his duties; this Court has no faith in this Attorney General's ability or willingness to complete said duties.

 

[punk d]

I am not able to address this fully, but I would ask the court to consider the case of Grosse and his role as prosecutor and refusal to prosecute certain cases.

In that capacity the court never reprimanded him nor did the first recall motion against him succeed. I have worked tirelessly on matters at hand, brought forth cases presented to my office, and while mistakes have been made, I take the responsibility of this office very seriously.

I'd like to ask the Court if this opinion is held by all Justices of the court or simply Justice Gaspo.

The job of Attorney General is a relatively thankless one - we must be the bad guy at all times and unfortunately there has been no running history of successful prosecutions.

I have done more in my time as AG than nearly every other AG before me in the last year. I'm happy about that and I find it concerning that the court decided to single out my actions in this case and not the actions of Unibot who brought this waste of time before the court in the first place.

 

[Gaspo]

I authored this opinion, and its content was entirely approved by Chief Justice Hileville prior to its publication. Justice Sanctaria was not on the Court when these events took place, nor when this opinion was originally drafted, but is of course welcome to express his concurrence or dissent as he wishes. The Justices present at the time of your actions, however, are unanimous.

Regarding Grosse, all I can say is that that Court was not this Court. We are not inclined to tolerate behavior that we find unacceptable, merely because other people tolerated it once upon a time. And those people didn't even tolerate it - Grosse's actions resulted in the law being changed to require you to prosecute all matters.

Using "he got away with it before!" as an excuse is akin to trying to argue out of a speeding ticket by saying that everyone else was also speeding. At the end of the day, you still broke the law. And you did it, speaking of Grosse and his actions, by refusing to prosecute a certain case. You went as far as you thought the law required you to go, before ceasing to act. Your actions are quite clearly contradicted by the Legal Code and your Oath, which in combination require you to steadfastly see all prosecutions to the end. You are obligated, in other words, to "be the bad guy."

I look forward to your full response.

 

[Chasmanthe]

If I may ask, when exactly did Grosse provoke the amendment of the law to require the AG prosecute all cases? I could not recall this, so I looked, but have been unable to locate what you described.

 

[Gaspo]

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/pages/laws/#.idx_0
September 15, 2012

 

[punk d]

After thinking about this, I have decided not to respond to the court's opinion beyond what I have already said. I believe an additional response would not assist in helping the legal system in TNP become more effective.

This is my last comment on this matter.

EDIT: Fixed a couple things.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I've read this piece and apologize for not responding to it sooner. I have been considering how I should respond to this.

It's a tough one, as I generally believe that an Attorney General should not have to prosecute on all matters, because some of them to be frank are ridiculous, and TNPers do seem to run to the court about everything. It is disappointing that Grosseschnauzers actions have harmed the ability of the all future prosecutors to act appropriately in such matters My opinion aside, the law is the law, and I recognize that the Attorney General is obligated to prosecute all cases to the best of his ability.

Looking at the Court thread in Question, no evidence was submitted beyond that which was given by Unibot in his initial indictment. Neither party took much of an interest in this case and neither provided a statement in the appropriate time. No witnesses were called, and as far as I am aware, the Attorney General did not call or seek witnesses that could certify that Unibot had indeed violated the law. In particular I am concerned by the Attorney General's remarks here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8084243&t=6999108

The case may be frivolous, but the indictment was approved by the court and the AG is obligated to do everything in his power to see this case through to conclusion.

Do I feel that mistakes were made with this case? Absolutely. Do I feel that the AG could have done more? Yes. And in conclusion I agree with the Attorney General that this was a frivolous case, and I reallly wish that people would stop running to the court over the most trivial of matters, or to make a political point (no better an example than this case).

I won't ask the Attorney General to resign. He has a significant workload and I believe he has been doing what he can to work through that as quickly as possible. Judicial elections are not far away, and the people will have their opportunity then to make their voices heard in who will run this important department. The other avenue open to people is via recall.

I think it would be best if we could clarify the powers of the Attorney General so that they do not have to prosecute on all matters, with an additional power of the court to appoint a Special prosecutor if required. I will think on this some more, and am open to suggestions on this matter. We have had some really stupid cases lately, such as the one filed by JAL about Erastide couping the Delegacy with the mods. The courts did not accept this indictment, but the Attorney General was still obligated to file said indictment and to try and find as much evidence as possible. An unnecessary waste of time I feel, when the AG has more pressing matters to deal with.