Funkadelia for Attorney General

[Funkadelia]

Greetings, everyone.

I've finally come out of the depths, and have decided to run for Attorney General.

Spoiler: CV

TNP
Court Justice in TNP (x2)

Lazarus
Celestial Being (Head of State) of Lazarus
General of the Lazarene Liberation Army
Court Justice in Lazarus
Delegate of Lazarus (x2)
Vice Delegate of Lazarus
Cultural Minister of Lazarus

FRA
Regional Liaison Officer
Chancellor

Taijitu
Delegate
Senator
Chief Justice
Court Justice

Personally, I have recently taken a heightened interest in TNP law. In terms of Nationstates, it is definitely the most robust and developed legal system around. I have previously served, two separate times, as a court justice in The North Pacific, and I have also served as a justice in Lazarus and Taijitu so I understand the general ins and outs of legal processes, and I also have some serious experience in The North Pacific law.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been much court activity recently to re-cut my teeth, so to speak, but I believe that my experience is sufficient to carry out the duties of the office, and my past experiences here and elsewhere are proof that I can dutifully execute my responsibilities. I pledge to carry out these duties quickly, efficiently, and thoroughly if I am fortunate enough to be elected to the position. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.

 

[Mall]

I respect the honesty required to post of list of positions that more or less disqualify you from the job you are seeking. It speaks to great strength of character.

My question is this: if you had indisputable evidence that you yourself had committed a crime against TNP, would you turn yourself in and submit the evidence to the Court?

 

[Funkadelia]

I respect the honesty required to post of list of positions that more or less disqualify you from the job you are seeking. It speaks to great strength of character.

My question is this: if you had indisputable evidence that you yourself had committed a crime against TNP, would you turn yourself in and submit the evidence to the Court?

Conceivably, if I was looking to commit crimes as Attorney General, I would have already considered the fact that I would be the one who would have to direct charges against myself and would endeavor to not leave any evidence of this hypothetical crime being committed, but I don't see that happening any time during my tenure.

 

[Mall]

I respect the honesty required to post of list of positions that more or less disqualify you from the job you are seeking. It speaks to great strength of character.

My question is this: if you had indisputable evidence that you yourself had committed a crime against TNP, would you turn yourself in and submit the evidence to the Court?

Conceivably, if I was looking to commit crimes as Attorney General, I would have already considered the fact that I would be the one who would have to direct charges against myself and would endeavor to not leave any evidence of this hypothetical crime being committed, but I don't see that happening any time during my tenure.

So you're not ruling out the possibility that you will indeed commit a crime and cover your tracks to the best of your ability?

 

[Funkadelia]

I respect the honesty required to post of list of positions that more or less disqualify you from the job you are seeking. It speaks to great strength of character.

My question is this: if you had indisputable evidence that you yourself had committed a crime against TNP, would you turn yourself in and submit the evidence to the Court?

Conceivably, if I was looking to commit crimes as Attorney General, I would have already considered the fact that I would be the one who would have to direct charges against myself and would endeavor to not leave any evidence of this hypothetical crime being committed, but I don't see that happening any time during my tenure.

So you're not ruling out the possibility that you will indeed commit a crime and cover your tracks to the best of your ability?

Sorry, I was just taking that answer out of the criminal's guidebook:

I don't intend on committing any crimes, so it's not worth it to consider that far fetched hypothetical.

 

[Mall]

I respect the honesty required to post of list of positions that more or less disqualify you from the job you are seeking. It speaks to great strength of character.

My question is this: if you had indisputable evidence that you yourself had committed a crime against TNP, would you turn yourself in and submit the evidence to the Court?

Conceivably, if I was looking to commit crimes as Attorney General, I would have already considered the fact that I would be the one who would have to direct charges against myself and would endeavor to not leave any evidence of this hypothetical crime being committed, but I don't see that happening any time during my tenure.

So you're not ruling out the possibility that you will indeed commit a crime and cover your tracks to the best of your ability?

Sorry, I was just taking that answer out of the criminal's guidebook:

I don't intend on committing any crimes, so it's not worth it to consider that far fetched hypothetical.

Just to be clear, you (as a candidate for the AG position of the largest region in the game) are not willing to categorically state that you will not commit a crime during your time in office?

 

[Funkadelia]

I think I just did, but if it wasn't clear, I categorically state that I will not commit a crime during my time in office.

 

[Mall]

I think I just did, but if it wasn't clear, I categorically state that I will not commit a crime during my time in office.

So even if the region were hanging in the balance, and the only way for it to be saved from a ne'er do well couper was to commit some crime (exceeding endorsement cap for example) you wouldn't do it. Don't you think that an AG should have some level of understanding that the laws of the region aren't as important as the region itself?

 

[Funkadelia]

I think I just did, but if it wasn't clear, I categorically state that I will not commit a crime during my time in office.

So even if the region were hanging in the balance, and the only way for it to be saved from a ne'er do well couper was to commit some crime (exceeding endorsement cap for example) you wouldn't do it. Don't you think that an AG should have some level of understanding that the laws of the region aren't as important as the region itself?

I am so litigious that I would always observe standing law when considering my actions. Not to mention the fact that I am WA locked in another region.

 

[Mall]

I think I just did, but if it wasn't clear, I categorically state that I will not commit a crime during my time in office.

So even if the region were hanging in the balance, and the only way for it to be saved from a ne'er do well couper was to commit some crime (exceeding endorsement cap for example) you wouldn't do it. Don't you think that an AG should have some level of understanding that the laws of the region aren't as important as the region itself?

I am so litigious that I would always observe standing law when considering my actions. Not to mention the fact that I am WA locked in another region.

Ignoring without forgetting for a moment the fact that you consider the law of TNP (an institution designed solely to serve TNP and without any intrinsic value independent from that purpose), how would you respond to the fact that you being WA locked elsewhere clearly shows your disdain for TNP and willingness to put the interests of a former NPO puppet state above the interests of TNP?

 

[Funkadelia]

I think I just did, but if it wasn't clear, I categorically state that I will not commit a crime during my time in office.

So even if the region were hanging in the balance, and the only way for it to be saved from a ne'er do well couper was to commit some crime (exceeding endorsement cap for example) you wouldn't do it. Don't you think that an AG should have some level of understanding that the laws of the region aren't as important as the region itself?

I am so litigious that I would always observe standing law when considering my actions. Not to mention the fact that I am WA locked in another region.

Ignoring without forgetting for a moment the fact that you consider the law of TNP (an institution designed solely to serve TNP and without any intrinsic value independent from that purpose), how would you respond to the fact that you being WA locked elsewhere clearly shows your disdain for TNP and willingness to put the interests of a former NPO puppet state above the interests of TNP?

I am running for Attorney General, not Vice Delegate.

 

[Mall]

I think I just did, but if it wasn't clear, I categorically state that I will not commit a crime during my time in office.

So even if the region were hanging in the balance, and the only way for it to be saved from a ne'er do well couper was to commit some crime (exceeding endorsement cap for example) you wouldn't do it. Don't you think that an AG should have some level of understanding that the laws of the region aren't as important as the region itself?

I am so litigious that I would always observe standing law when considering my actions. Not to mention the fact that I am WA locked in another region.

Ignoring without forgetting for a moment the fact that you consider the law of TNP (an institution designed solely to serve TNP and without any intrinsic value independent from that purpose), how would you respond to the fact that you being WA locked elsewhere clearly shows your disdain for TNP and willingness to put the interests of a former NPO puppet state above the interests of TNP?

I am running for Attorney General, not Vice Delegate.

So just to clarify for voters who are no doubt deeply concerned at this point, you acknowledge your disdain for TNP but assert that as AG you would not be capable of subverting it in favor of Lazarus?

 

[Funkadelia]

I think I just did, but if it wasn't clear, I categorically state that I will not commit a crime during my time in office.

So even if the region were hanging in the balance, and the only way for it to be saved from a ne'er do well couper was to commit some crime (exceeding endorsement cap for example) you wouldn't do it. Don't you think that an AG should have some level of understanding that the laws of the region aren't as important as the region itself?

I am so litigious that I would always observe standing law when considering my actions. Not to mention the fact that I am WA locked in another region.

Ignoring without forgetting for a moment the fact that you consider the law of TNP (an institution designed solely to serve TNP and without any intrinsic value independent from that purpose), how would you respond to the fact that you being WA locked elsewhere clearly shows your disdain for TNP and willingness to put the interests of a former NPO puppet state above the interests of TNP?

I am running for Attorney General, not Vice Delegate.

So just to clarify for voters who are no doubt deeply concerned at this point, you acknowledge your disdain for TNP but assert that as AG you would not be capable of subverting it in favor of Lazarus?

I, and I'm sure many others, don't have much regard for WA status in terms of love or disdain for the region.

 

[Mall]

I think I just did, but if it wasn't clear, I categorically state that I will not commit a crime during my time in office.

So even if the region were hanging in the balance, and the only way for it to be saved from a ne'er do well couper was to commit some crime (exceeding endorsement cap for example) you wouldn't do it. Don't you think that an AG should have some level of understanding that the laws of the region aren't as important as the region itself?

I am so litigious that I would always observe standing law when considering my actions. Not to mention the fact that I am WA locked in another region.

Ignoring without forgetting for a moment the fact that you consider the law of TNP (an institution designed solely to serve TNP and without any intrinsic value independent from that purpose), how would you respond to the fact that you being WA locked elsewhere clearly shows your disdain for TNP and willingness to put the interests of a former NPO puppet state above the interests of TNP?

I am running for Attorney General, not Vice Delegate.

So just to clarify for voters who are no doubt deeply concerned at this point, you acknowledge your disdain for TNP but assert that as AG you would not be capable of subverting it in favor of Lazarus?

I, and I'm sure many others, don't have much regard for WA status in terms of love or disdain for the region.

Since you don't view WA location to be indicative of anything important why do you view yourself as so WA locked that you wouldn't even move it to help TNP in the event of a coup?

 

[Funkadelia]

The only reason my WA is in Lazarus is because the amount of influence on that nation (in contrast to the virtually zero influence on my TNP nation) is convenient to build in the case of a coup in Lazarus -- something that is much more of a risk when compared to TNP's better distributed influence pool.

If I had higher influence on a TNP nation, I'd imagine things would be reversed.

 

[Mall]

The only reason my WA is in Lazarus is because the amount of influence on that nation (in contrast to the virtually zero influence on my TNP nation) is convenient to build in the case of a coup in Lazarus -- something that is much more of a risk when compared to TNP's better distributed influence pool.

If I had higher influence on a TNP nation, I'd imagine things would be reversed.

Some would say that your unwillingness to continue the quote pyramid is indicative of an unpleasant disposition which both rejects fun and is uncomfortable with commitment. How would you respond?

 

[Funkadelia]

The only reason my WA is in Lazarus is because the amount of influence on that nation (in contrast to the virtually zero influence on my TNP nation) is convenient to build in the case of a coup in Lazarus -- something that is much more of a risk when compared to TNP's better distributed influence pool.

If I had higher influence on a TNP nation, I'd imagine things would be reversed.

Some would say that your unwillingness to continue the quote pyramid is indicative of an unpleasant disposition which both rejects fun and is uncomfortable with commitment. How would you respond?

I would respond by saying that pyramids are fun for a time, but sometimes they get too big, and that can become a problem.

 

[Guy]

Regarding the hypothetical crime, I see no reason to think that Funk will commit an offence in TNP.

As is well-established, the prosecutorial decision requires a determination of whether a prosecution is in the public interest or not. Presumably, if one had to commit an offence to "save the region", a prosecution would not be in the public interest.

Due to the inherent conflict of interests, if the A-G had allegedly committed an offence, I would presume that someone else would make that determination.

It's such a hypothetical set of events that I don't know why you even burdened Funk with it, though.

 

[Flemingovia]

If you could unilaterally change one law in TNP, which one would it be?

 

[Funkadelia]

If you could unilaterally change one law in TNP, which one would it be?

I think in general, it's hard to pick out any singular law to change at a time like now, when not much is going on. Typically, I find, that changes should be made when a special circumstance arises that requires reconsideration of our laws. Typically a critical point that occurs due to someone's actions or some external factor that will require a change to law.

 

[Darcania]

Hi, Funkadelia, welcome back to the judicial election cycle.

I am interested on hearing about your last term as Justice, specifically the circumstances (where you didn't recuse yourself despite public opposition to your decision) that led to your eventual resignation.

I'd like to hear another opinion from you about those circumstances, specifically:

1. Do you still believe you were in the right by refusing to recuse yourself?
2. Do you still believe what you said in your resignation (since the Court is elected, they must prioritize being elected over properly interpreting the law, etc.)
3. Do you believe the AG's office, as another elected office, faces similar skewed priorities, and would you follow those priorities yourself?
4. Further, if you faced a Justice on the Court refusing to recuse under similar circumstances during your tenure as AG, how would you react?

Finally, a quick couple questions separate from the above:

• What would you do different from your predecessor (yours truly)?
• What would you change about the AG's office, both within the confines of the law and in a hypothetical situation where you can change anything about the AG's office (or the Court system in general)?

 

[Funkadelia]

Hi, Funkadelia, welcome back to the judicial election cycle.

I am interested on hearing about your last term as Justice, specifically the circumstances (where you didn't recuse yourself despite public opposition to your decision) that led to your eventual resignation.

I'd like to hear another opinion from you about those circumstances, specifically:

1. Do you still believe you were in the right by refusing to recuse yourself?
2. Do you still believe what you said in your resignation (since the Court is elected, they must prioritize being elected over properly interpreting the law, etc.)
3. Do you believe the AG's office, as another elected office, faces similar skewed priorities, and would you follow those priorities yourself?
4. Further, if you faced a Justice on the Court refusing to recuse under similar circumstances during your tenure as AG, how would you react?

Finally, a quick couple questions separate from the above:

• What would you do different from your predecessor (yours truly)?
• What would you change about the AG's office, both within the confines of the law and in a hypothetical situation where you can change anything about the AG's office (or the Court system in general)?

1: I have thought about that quite a bit. I think probably the best thing to do was to recuse myself due to the public pressure and consensus, but I still believe that in that particular case, it was more of an instruction on how to proceed in the future, as no one who was involved in that case wanted a restart of the election, as the filer of the petition mentioned several times that the case would be for precedent purposes, and it was too late to restart it. I still believe I could have still provided an unbiased ruling on the issue, especially considering how minute the issue was, and the fact that it would have absolutely no bearing on the election that I had already won.

2: I believe that I have matured significantly in terms of self as well as how I view this game, so my perspectives on things are a bit different. I was probably a bit harsher than I should have been during that resignation post, but I still believe that in a way, because of the fact that I still believe that I could not have had bias when ruling on that case, the proper thing for me to do to continue to be in peoples' good graces would be to recuse myself, where I would much rather have quickly deliberated with my fellow Justices and produced a ruling that would inform future election commissioners on the process in the interest of observing the law, rather than focus on staying popular. I think in general it's neither here nor there, because it's quite far in the past and I'm not really hung up on it. I just feel like you deserve a full response to your question.

3: It's possible, but not quite in the same way. The Attorney General is the region's chief prosecutor, so I feel that there is not much risk of doing something that is ridiculously unpopular, but I'd imagine there are some times where I might have to prosecute a member of the executive government, which would make me unpopular with those in power, which I am not afraid of.

4: That scenario is highly hypothetical, and I can't answer that without being hypothetical, or commenting on my own situation, which would be impossible to without bias for my own position.

I: I don't know if I can really say that I'd do anything wildly different from you. The court was not extremely active during this time, so I don't think anything could have been handled much differently than it was.

II: I think in general I prefer an inquisitorial court system, which ironically would eliminate the position of Attorney General. In that system people would admit all evidence to the court, and the court alone would inspect the evidence and make a ruling based on it, without the need for a trial, which I think many people can recognize has caused myriad problems in the past (especially considering the notable lack of successful prosecutions). Again, as you noted, that's pretty hypothetical, and I don't really want to take on the burden of trying to upend TNP's long established legal system.

 

[Mall]

The only reason my WA is in Lazarus is because the amount of influence on that nation (in contrast to the virtually zero influence on my TNP nation) is convenient to build in the case of a coup in Lazarus -- something that is much more of a risk when compared to TNP's better distributed influence pool.

If I had higher influence on a TNP nation, I'd imagine things would be reversed.

Some would say that your unwillingness to continue the quote pyramid is indicative of an unpleasant disposition which both rejects fun and is uncomfortable with commitment. How would you respond?

I would respond by saying that pyramids are fun for a time, but sometimes they get too big, and that can become a problem.

So you view things that are too big to be problematic? Some would say that this is tantamount to saying that you believe that TNP should be culled. How would you respond?

 

[Funkadelia]

The only reason my WA is in Lazarus is because the amount of influence on that nation (in contrast to the virtually zero influence on my TNP nation) is convenient to build in the case of a coup in Lazarus -- something that is much more of a risk when compared to TNP's better distributed influence pool.

If I had higher influence on a TNP nation, I'd imagine things would be reversed.

Some would say that your unwillingness to continue the quote pyramid is indicative of an unpleasant disposition which both rejects fun and is uncomfortable with commitment. How would you respond?

I would respond by saying that pyramids are fun for a time, but sometimes they get too big, and that can become a problem.

So you view things that are too big to be problematic? Some would say that this is tantamount to saying that you believe that TNP should be culled. How would you respond?

Spoiler

 

[Mall]

The only reason my WA is in Lazarus is because the amount of influence on that nation (in contrast to the virtually zero influence on my TNP nation) is convenient to build in the case of a coup in Lazarus -- something that is much more of a risk when compared to TNP's better distributed influence pool.

If I had higher influence on a TNP nation, I'd imagine things would be reversed.

Some would say that your unwillingness to continue the quote pyramid is indicative of an unpleasant disposition which both rejects fun and is uncomfortable with commitment. How would you respond?

I would respond by saying that pyramids are fun for a time, but sometimes they get too big, and that can become a problem.

So you view things that are too big to be problematic? Some would say that this is tantamount to saying that you believe that TNP should be culled. How would you respond?

Spoiler

I will take that as a "yes". Do you believe that TNP voters should vote for an AG who has admitted to wishing to coup TNP or at the very least assist those who wish to do so?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Are there any legal controversies in TNP law which you presently think would warrant the use of the inherent standing to bring judicial review which you would enjoy as Attorney General, if elected? If so, what are they and why do you consider that they warrant judicial review? If not, in what circumstances, generally, would you consider use of the Attorney General's inherent standing appropriate?

The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate or a Minister?

Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?

 

[Funkadelia]

Are there any legal controversies in TNP law which you presently think would warrant the use of the inherent standing to bring judicial review which you would enjoy as Attorney General, if elected? If so, what are they and why do you consider that they warrant judicial review? If not, in what circumstances, generally, would you consider use of the Attorney General's inherent standing appropriate?

The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate or a Minister?

Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?

I will enumerate my answers to these questions to make it a bit easier to parse.

1: As I stated earlier in response to Flemingovia, there is not much going on at the moment that warrants that sort of close observation of the law and our practices. However, I believe the use of the AG's inherent standing in those circumstances to be best used in cases where:
A) There is no clear individual affected by a decision to make a request for judicial review, or
B) There is some issue that quite obviously warrants review, but nobody has brought it up yet

2: The solution to that is pretty straightforward. No matter who it was, regardless of their rank in the government, I would advise them as strongly as I could to do the legal thing. If they continued to do that regardless, I would gather as much evidence as I could regarding that action and file it with the Court as soon as possible. That sort of thing is not acceptable.

3: By this, do you mean the sentences for people convicted of one crime or another? Can you be a bit more specific as to what you mean? As it stands, I don't really have much of an issue with our current punishments.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Are there any legal controversies in TNP law which you presently think would warrant the use of the inherent standing to bring judicial review which you would enjoy as Attorney General, if elected? If so, what are they and why do you consider that they warrant judicial review? If not, in what circumstances, generally, would you consider use of the Attorney General's inherent standing appropriate?

The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate or a Minister?

Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?

I will enumerate my answers to these questions to make it a bit easier to parse.

1: As I stated earlier in response to Flemingovia, there is not much going on at the moment that warrants that sort of close observation of the law and our practices. However, I believe the use of the AG's inherent standing in those circumstances to be best used in cases where:
A) There is no clear individual affected by a decision to make a request for judicial review, or
B) There is some issue that quite obviously warrants review, but nobody has brought it up yet

2: The solution to that is pretty straightforward. No matter who it was, regardless of their rank in the government, I would advise them as strongly as I could to do the legal thing. If they continued to do that regardless, I would gather as much evidence as I could regarding that action and file it with the Court as soon as possible. That sort of thing is not acceptable.

3: By this, do you mean the sentences for people convicted of one crime or another? Can you be a bit more specific as to what you mean? As it stands, I don't really have much of an issue with our current punishments.

Thank you for your answers.

A number of follow ups in relation to the second question: Do you believe that issues may arise, in relation to any potential criminal action, as a result of the operation of the provisions of Section 7.4, clauses 22-24 of the Codified Law? What would be the status, in relation to any potential criminal action against them, of the advice given to the official? Could the constitutional requirement to act as legal adviser to the official extend to a requirement to act as their defence counsel in relation to any criminal action, presuming such action was not the result of ignoring advice previously given to them?

In relation to the third, I mean whether you consider Section 2 of the Codified Law to be sufficient for TNP's purposes and, regardless of whether it is or is not sufficient, whether there are improvements which could be made, rather than any of the sentences that have thusfar been handed down.

 

[Funkadelia]

Thank you for your answers.

A number of follow ups in relation to the second question: Do you believe that issues may arise, in relation to any potential criminal action, as a result of the operation of the provisions of Section 7.4, clauses 22-24 of the Codified Law? What would be the status, in relation to any potential criminal action against them, of the advice given to the official? Could the constitutional requirement to act as legal adviser to the official extend to a requirement to act as their defence counsel in relation to any criminal action, presuming such action was not the result of ignoring advice previously given to them?

In relation to the third, I mean whether you consider Section 2 of the Codified Law to be sufficient for TNP's purposes and, regardless of whether it is or is not sufficient, whether there are improvements which could be made, rather than any of the sentences that have thusfar been handed down.

I'll willingly admit that you've caught me in a more minor slip up, which I think is easier to make because it is more difficult to imagine all the details of a hypothetical than it is to live a real scenario. I believe that it's possible that I would be considered a witness to the crime, which would require one of my deputies to manage the case. In relation to the second part of the question, I believe that the requirement to be a legal adviser is for just that: advice. I do not interpret the constitution to require the Attorney General to act as the Delegate's defense attorney. That defeats the purpose of having an Attorney General elected separately from, instead of appointed by, the Delegate.

Secondly, yes, I believe Section 2 of the Legal Code is sufficient for our purposes. I have never believed it to be otherwise, and I especially agree with the idea of allowing the court some discretion in sentencing.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Thank you for your answers.

A number of follow ups in relation to the second question: Do you believe that issues may arise, in relation to any potential criminal action, as a result of the operation of the provisions of Section 7.4, clauses 22-24 of the Codified Law? What would be the status, in relation to any potential criminal action against them, of the advice given to the official? Could the constitutional requirement to act as legal adviser to the official extend to a requirement to act as their defence counsel in relation to any criminal action, presuming such action was not the result of ignoring advice previously given to them?

In relation to the third, I mean whether you consider Section 2 of the Codified Law to be sufficient for TNP's purposes and, regardless of whether it is or is not sufficient, whether there are improvements which could be made, rather than any of the sentences that have thusfar been handed down.

I'll willingly admit that you've caught me in a more minor slip up, which I think is easier to make because it is more difficult to imagine all the details of a hypothetical than it is to live a real scenario. I believe that it's possible that I would be considered a witness to the crime, which would require one of my deputies to manage the case. In relation to the second part of the question, I believe that the requirement to be a legal adviser is for just that: advice. I do not interpret the constitution to require the Attorney General to act as the Delegate's defense attorney. That defeats the purpose of having an Attorney General elected separately from, instead of appointed by, the Delegate.

Secondly, yes, I believe Section 2 of the Legal Code is sufficient for our purposes. I have never believed it to be otherwise, and I especially agree with the idea of allowing the court some discretion in sentencing.

Thank you for your answers.

A further follow up and clarification of my second question, as it seems I may not have been wholly clear in relation to what I meant by asking as to the status of the advice given to the official: there does not appear to have been any consideration of the issue of legal privilege in TNP, presumably because there does not appear to be a power to require evidence to be given for the purposes of prosecution and so there has been no attempt to use it to require legal advice be disclosed (the power of the Court to require evidence seems only to extend to exculpatory evidence (Re: the Existence of a Duty to Disclose; Re: the power of the Court to subpoena evidence)), so would it be open to the Attorney General to use the advice given for the purpose of a prosecution (for instance, to prove that a violation of a law was done knowing it was a violation)?

 

[Mall]

Some would say that your unwillingness to answer my previous question is effectively an admission that you do not believe that TNP voters should vote for a Lazarene-favoring nation. How would you respond?

 

[Funkadelia]

Thank you for your answers.

A further follow up and clarification of my second question, as it seems I may not have been wholly clear in relation to what I meant by asking as to the status of the advice given to the official: there does not appear to have been any consideration of the issue of legal privilege in TNP, presumably because there does not appear to be a power to require evidence to be given for the purposes of prosecution and so there has been no attempt to use it to require legal advice be disclosed (the power of the Court to require evidence seems only to extend to exculpatory evidence (Re: the Existence of a Duty to Disclose; Re: the power of the Court to subpoena evidence)), so would it be open to the Attorney General to use the advice given for the purpose of a prosecution (for instance, to prove that a violation of a law was done knowing it was a violation)?

I will answer that question with two answers. Firstly, as Attorney General, I personally would disclose any advice given to any official that I am constitutionally required to provide. It's simply the right thing to do if they did, in fact, commit a crime.

Secondly, I believe that any form of advice given to the Delegate on matters of legality, if a criminal case does come before the Court, should be provided to the Court as evidence. I believe refusal to do so is tantamount to conspiracy.

Some would say that your unwillingness to answer my previous question is effectively an admission that you do not believe that TNP voters should vote for a Lazarene-favoring nation. How would you respond?

I would respond by saying that I don't have all the time in the world to answer your circuitous questions.

 

[Mall]

Some would say that your unwillingness to answer my previous question is effectively an admission that you do not believe that TNP voters should vote for a Lazarene-favoring nation. How would you respond?

I would respond by saying that I don't have all the time in the world to answer your circuitous questions.

Some would say that if you don't even have time to answer questions in your own campaign thread then you couldn't possibly have time to actually do the job that you would be running for. How would you respond?

 

[Darcania]

Hi, Funk, another few questions.

1. Who do you plan to ask to be your Deputy Attorney(s) General?
2. It seems ABC is interested in the office, would you consider appointing them should you win this election?
3. If you should lose the election, would you consider asking ABC to appoint you as a Deputy Attorney General?

 

[Barbarossistan]

I understand that shortly before my funding there was n issue that resulted in your resignation as Justice. Could you explain what, if anything, you have learned from this episode that increases you fitness for office now?

 

[Darcania]

I understand that shortly before my funding there was n issue that resulted in your resignation as Justice. Could you explain what, if anything, you have learned from this episode that increases you fitness for office now?

I've actually already asked about this, and Funk answered it here. Just thought I'd let you know real quick in case you didn't.

 

[Funkadelia]

Hi, Funk, another few questions.

1. Who do you plan to ask to be your Deputy Attorney(s) General?
2. It seems ABC is interested in the office, would you consider appointing them should you win this election?
3. If you should lose the election, would you consider asking ABC to appoint you as a Deputy Attorney General?

1: I plan on having open applications to keep the office as transparent as possible, which also means being as inclusive as reasonably possible.
2. I would consider it if they applied.
3: I would. Regardless of the result of the election, I remain interested in TNP's legal system and would be happy to take up any role I could to that end.