Vivanco for Justice - Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius

Vivanco

Legal Nerd? Yeah, that's me
-
-
-
Pronouns
She/Her They/Them
TNP Nation
vivanco
Discord
ra#9794
sh1cCc6.png

You may be wondering what this latin phrase means. "Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius". In a literal sense it means "Give me the facts, I shall give you the law".

What is a justice? A person, nonetheless, someone who has not only the right, but the obligation, of the interpreation of the law for the resolution of conflict. And we could leave it there. But, doesn't it feel like an empty carcass? A simple definition, of course, but incomplete.

What is a justice?

1. A Justice is Independent.
The greatest example, and manifestation of law, is the independence of the judges. The skill and obligation to remain untouched and unbiased no matter the government, nor other members of our community. A Justice's greatest friend and weapon is their independence. And for that, as I have shown in my time as Attorney General of The North Pacific, this pillar of the juditial system, the independence is not only a think I intend to keep, but that I have actually defended it, and acted by it.

2. A Justice is Reliable.
I have shown my interest in legal studies in several times, and I have gotten a fair ammount of experience and exposure upon TNP Law within my term as Attorney General. Again, I would like to remark my current status as student of Law. Time and time again, as both AG and Deputy Minister I have shown my attitude willing to help and do what ought to be done. And as a Justice, things would not only not change, but increase on such heartfelt link with the responsability of such rank.

A Justice's goal is, in itself Justice. And for justice, we have to know the fact first.

And thus; Give me the facts, and I shall give you the ruling.

Da Mihi Factum, Dabo Tibi Ius.
 
The general public has expressed concern over what they perceive as overly harsh sentencing in court cases, can you explain your approach to determining a proper sentence in a criminal case?
 
Consider the following.

The NPA conducted an operation into the Slatos region. As the trigger was pulled on the jump, a counter-operation jumped into the region. Ultimately the invasion failed. The Minister of Defense Bobberino was determined to figure out why the operation failed and reached out to the region's intelligence operators. They discover an NPA soldier leaked the information to his friend who has a nation in Slatos.

1) Bobberino charges the soldier with Treason, Espionage, and Gross Misconduct for violating his citizenship oath. The soldier claims that his friend is his roommate and saw his screen which had the operation time displayed. He further states that his friend is willing to testify to that before the court. How would you evaluate the trustworthiness of the testimony from the friend in question? How much weight should it be given to the situation overall?

2) Consider the above and ignore question 1.

Oh No. Someone messed up and the soldier was demasked as a citizen but not removed from the NPA roster before the operation was conduction and the information leaked. Bobberino charges the soldier with Gross Misconduct for violating his NPA Oath. Using existing laws and case law, does the NPA Oath met the requirements for a "legally mandated sworn oath " under the law?
 
The general public has expressed concern over what they perceive as overly harsh sentencing in court cases, can you explain your approach to determining a proper sentence in a criminal case?
If one ought to determine what's to determine how to approach a proper sentence in a criminal case, there's a few pillars to follow:
- Ultima Ratio. A criminal sentence is the last straw in the procedure, it's the last thing to do. Due to this final nature, it's only natural that some sentences seem more harsh than others.
- Proportionality. Each case is its own world. If the case is of a higher damage, it deserves a higher punishment. The nature of the act, the punitive nature of a criminal act is only one way to calculate the sentence. There's also the fact of possible repetition of a crime. The goal of a sentence is to rehabilitate those who have done wrong, but mostly is to punish, to protect a certain juditial good.
 
Consider the following.

The NPA conducted an operation into the Slatos region. As the trigger was pulled on the jump, a counter-operation jumped into the region. Ultimately the invasion failed. The Minister of Defense Bobberino was determined to figure out why the operation failed and reached out to the region's intelligence operators. They discover an NPA soldier leaked the information to his friend who has a nation in Slatos.

1) Bobberino charges the soldier with Treason, Espionage, and Gross Misconduct for violating his citizenship oath. The soldier claims that his friend is his roommate and saw his screen which had the operation time displayed. He further states that his friend is willing to testify to that before the court. How would you evaluate the trustworthiness of the testimony from the friend in question? How much weight should it be given to the situation overall?

2) Consider the above and ignore question 1.

Oh No. Someone messed up and the soldier was demasked as a citizen but not removed from the NPA roster before the operation was conduction and the information leaked. Bobberino charges the soldier with Gross Misconduct for violating his NPA Oath. Using existing laws and case law, does the NPA Oath met the requirements for a "legally mandated sworn oath " under the law?
Case One.
The soldier has commited a negligence if what they say is true, and since a person is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise as stated in the Clause 7 of the Bill of Rights, we will assume that to be correct.
Of course, all things provided as evidence ought to be examined and evaluated regarding their reliability. If the said roommate is proven to be not only such, but that the aliby is correct, the testimony would be taken as true, unless it is proven otherwise by the prosecution of the case.
The weight of the situation would be considerable. We wouldn't be seeing a proper treason, or punitive act, but a negligence coming from the defendant's part, and thus, the overall sentence would be much lighter given such context of not being a proper conscious action.

Case Two.
The current oath to the NPA is the following:
NPA Oath:
By my honour and by my conscience, I will endeavour to be a trustworthy and faithful soldier of the North Pacific Army. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the Security Council without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law and all military rules, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavour to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavour to represent The North Pacific with honour and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation
It is not a requirement to be part of the NPA to be a citiizen, as we can see in the most recent addition to the army of a non-citizen, this being Jeremy James.
All nations within The North Pacific, being residents, citizens or members of the organizations of the region, are subject to the Legal Code. Within the Legal Code we find the following of the charges:
Legal Code:
Section 1.9. Gross Misconduct
25. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
To be a member of the NPA, you need to take an oath, an oath that is legally mandated within the Legal Code
Legal Code:
Section 7.6. The North Pacific Army
[...]

37. Nations wishing to join the North Pacific Army must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.
By thus, it is a legally mandated oath.
 
@Vivanco I am glad to see you are still pursuing work with the region's legal system. I admire your tenacity and your courage in continuing to open yourself up to new challenges. I hope you continue to learn a lot and develop that.
I have a series of questions:

In light of the recently passed AGORA Act, is it your opinion that the Court no longer can resolve matters of ambiguity or clarify legal questions through the normal Court process? If not, what is the best way for the Court to do that? Is that something the Court should be doing?

What is your opinion on setting up a civil procedure for the Court? Is it necessary? Would it work? If you attempted to pursue it, how would you do it?

Is there any criteria you feel would render a legal complaint frivolous or illegitimate? If so, what circumstances do you imagine would meet this criteria?

There have been a series of cases within the last year which featured guilty pleas and advocacy for reduced sentences, and yet the Court rendered what many felt were overly harsh judgments. Looking back at these recent cases, can you identify any which you feel had overly harsh sentences, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?

Is there any other case previously heard by the Court that you feel was decided incorrectly or inappropriately, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?

Judicial restraint is something many would consider to be worthy of pursuit. Explain your vision and personal philosophy as it comes to restraint and how this principle would be embodied, or tempered, by your own actions on the Court.

Related to the above, given that the number of cases the Court hears each term may be few and far between and the region's Court precedent slow to develop, do you believe that it is desirable to use the Court to right wrongs or address problems in existing law if given the chance with a relevant case? For the purposes of this question, I am taking it for granted that the Court will not rule on something or expand an opinion beyond what is germane to a case they are hearing.

Considering that Justices are elected in TNP just as officials in the others branches are, do you believe there is an imperative for the Court to defer entirely to the other branches when faced with situations where laws or decisions may be at risk of being overturned or deemed inconsistent with the constitution? Where is the bar for you when it comes to using your judgment to possibly reverse or undo the efforts of the other branches? Are there clear situations where this should or should not be done?

The penal code contemplates sentences that are mostly finite in nature, but in a few situations may be indefinite or permanent. In your view is there a functional difference between an indefinite sentence versus a permanent one in our laws as written? If so, what situations may one form of sentence be preferable over the other?

It has been remarked at various times that the Court does not provide an opportunity for interested citizens to learn the ropes or get acquainted with the region's legal system outside of reading legal documents and case law. Do you believe there is a way to provide such opportunities to citizens, such as a clerk or staff position working under the justices? Is this even something that is desirable or worthy or pursuit? If so, how would you propose going about doing that?

As you were most recently Attorney General, I would like to ask you:

How do you feel your experience as a prosecutor will inform or enhance your position as a Justice?
 
The nature of the act, the punitive nature of a criminal act is only one way to calculate the sentence. There's also the fact of possible repetition of a crime. The goal of a sentence is to rehabilitate those who have done wrong, but mostly is to punish, to protect a certain juditial good.
Can you explain this further? Is the purpose of a sentence to rehabilitate or to punish?
Case One.
The soldier has commited a negligence if what they say is true, and since a person is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise as stated in the Clause 7 of the Bill of Rights, we will assume that to be correct.
Of course, all things provided as evidence ought to be examined and evaluated regarding their reliability. If the said roommate is proven to be not only such, but that the aliby is correct, the testimony would be taken as true, unless it is proven otherwise by the prosecution of the case.
The weight of the situation would be considerable. We wouldn't be seeing a proper treason, or punitive act, but a negligence coming from the defendant's part, and thus, the overall sentence would be much lighter given such context of not being a proper conscious action.
I think you misunderstood the question. The question asked was "How would you evaluate the trustworthiness of the testimony from the friend in question? How much weight should it be given to the situation overall?" "It" in the second question refers also to the testimony, I believe, and not the case itself. I don't think you have addressed the testimony issue except in your second paragraph. Furthermore, the concept of alibi has never been raised in TNP courts before, as this is an online browser game, so I don't quite follow that line of thinking.
 
Last edited:
Would you have ruled differently on the original sentencing order in relation to TNP vs. Whole India? If so, how?
 
First and foremost, I would like to apologize from the delayed responses. I've been IRL on the Spanish Supreme Court, which is in the capital. I will answer shortly.
 
I don't usually ask questions of other candidates in elections, but since I do not think it has been brought up, what are your views on the rule amendments recently referred to the Assembly for consultation (here)?

EDIT: Bracket
 
Last edited:
@Vivanco I am glad to see you are still pursuing work with the region's legal system. I admire your tenacity and your courage in continuing to open yourself up to new challenges. I hope you continue to learn a lot and develop that.
I have a series of questions:

In light of the recently passed AGORA Act, is it your opinion that the Court no longer can resolve matters of ambiguity or clarify legal questions through the normal Court process? If not, what is the best way for the Court to do that? Is that something the Court should be doing?

What is your opinion on setting up a civil procedure for the Court? Is it necessary? Would it work? If you attempted to pursue it, how would you do it?

Is there any criteria you feel would render a legal complaint frivolous or illegitimate? If so, what circumstances do you imagine would meet this criteria?

There have been a series of cases within the last year which featured guilty pleas and advocacy for reduced sentences, and yet the Court rendered what many felt were overly harsh judgments. Looking back at these recent cases, can you identify any which you feel had overly harsh sentences, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?

Is there any other case previously heard by the Court that you feel was decided incorrectly or inappropriately, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?

Judicial restraint is something many would consider to be worthy of pursuit. Explain your vision and personal philosophy as it comes to restraint and how this principle would be embodied, or tempered, by your own actions on the Court.

Related to the above, given that the number of cases the Court hears each term may be few and far between and the region's Court precedent slow to develop, do you believe that it is desirable to use the Court to right wrongs or address problems in existing law if given the chance with a relevant case? For the purposes of this question, I am taking it for granted that the Court will not rule on something or expand an opinion beyond what is germane to a case they are hearing.

Considering that Justices are elected in TNP just as officials in the others branches are, do you believe there is an imperative for the Court to defer entirely to the other branches when faced with situations where laws or decisions may be at risk of being overturned or deemed inconsistent with the constitution? Where is the bar for you when it comes to using your judgment to possibly reverse or undo the efforts of the other branches? Are there clear situations where this should or should not be done?

The penal code contemplates sentences that are mostly finite in nature, but in a few situations may be indefinite or permanent. In your view is there a functional difference between an indefinite sentence versus a permanent one in our laws as written? If so, what situations may one form of sentence be preferable over the other?

It has been remarked at various times that the Court does not provide an opportunity for interested citizens to learn the ropes or get acquainted with the region's legal system outside of reading legal documents and case law. Do you believe there is a way to provide such opportunities to citizens, such as a clerk or staff position working under the justices? Is this even something that is desirable or worthy or pursuit? If so, how would you propose going about doing that?

As you were most recently Attorney General, I would like to ask you:

How do you feel your experience as a prosecutor will inform or enhance your position as a Justice?
1) About the AGORA Act.
I don't have the doubts that the court will be able to handle the proce3ssing of the cases without the figure of the Attorney General, but it would be more difficult due to the lack of a formal shade or statuary point of the AG. A figure of prossecution ought to be manifested, and from what the AGORA Act has processed, it is up currently to the RA to choose the next procedure, due to the abolishment of the office without a proper replacement done in the moment.

2) About civil procedures
Since we are in a social platform / game, it would be a good way to resolve conflicts that may surge between the people of The North Pacific. I would be in favour on that node, as a way to set up a brand new light of law, the Common Law, and in that way the legal culure of the region would not just increase, but be somewhat more active and more civil in their discourses.
To ensure the rule of law, I would deem it necessary, and it would work as long as the court system has the means in collaboration with the administration to ensure the rulings are done.
I would imagine in this cases, as many other and common civil cases, as to be of an individual against another. For example, badmouthing, attempts against the other's honour, difamation...

3) About the possible frivolity of the cases.
I would suggest the addition of the criteria of legitimation, the reasoning as to why they are legitimate to effectuate their action. If no certain reason or legitimation of the act is given, the case would be in my oppinion, be turned down. As an example to this case I would explain it as a pragmatic approach. A person has been difamating against me (in a civil sense). I am the one who's being the subject of the actions, and thus that is my reason and legitimation to the appeal. In other case, if I know one person is doing something, and the claim I make is proven false on purpose, said action would be frivolous as it was not only a lie against court (obstruction of justice), but also lacking justification.

4) About the harsher sentences.
I wouldn't have to look too far to find one: The Whole India trial. The way the evidence was treated, without a proper confirmation or process of proof, and the asumption of its figure, was a mistake that lead to a much harsher sentence and a R4R that I myself handled in the office of Attorney General. If proof isn't proven, things should not be taken as they are. Perhaps they could have given said process of authentication before the ruling, just to make sure and leave the case "knotted" and ended.

5) About Judicial Restraint
The justices' figure ought to be independent. But there seems to be a problem with the control of said power. Every power has their control, the legislative branch, the executive branch, and even the juditial branch. But this power is currently lacking said organization of self control. I would, in order to ensure the avoidance of the control and extralimit the powers of the justices, the creation of some form of superior court to unify the sentences in order to give the security law and rulings give. There's the topic of constitutional acts. In my oppinion, the stablishment of some form of Constitutional Court who's purpose is to intepretate the superior laws in case of not only doubt of the justices, but in case of in a case said rights have been extralimited of the justices, the control ought to be mantained.

6) About the current branch's involvement with the rest of power branches
It is practically impossible a real independence, but when the court is in session, all independence must be upheld, no matter the personal believes. A justice not only has to be independent, but has to seem like it was independent at the time of them being justices (I shall not add personal situations). But of course, the court has to have some form of saying as to control other branches, such as the other branches control the juditial system. Perhaps via a mechanism where before an act or legislation is put to vote, the court ougth to annalice it and give their evaluation on the legislation, and then put it to vote.

7) About "indefinite" and "permanent" rulings
The difference is simple. The indefinite, at a certain point in time, can lead to an end, while the permanent shall not have that possibility. I am personally against these kinds of rulings, for they won't leave a room for the resartive funtion of the rulings, but if one must be chosen, I would prefer indefinite, for this allows room for the restauration of the person rehabilited back in TNP society

8) About accesibility.
With the most recent reforms that are happening within TNP's legal community, there are forms that would allow the accesibility and easier access to the legal system of TNP in the form of bar associations. A thing that could be given by justices would be in the form of juditial secretaries, or advisors, who would assist in the process of the trial.

9) About my experience as Attorney General.
It was my first look within TNP's legal system, and I think in the time I was in office I've gotten enough experience to know at the very least the basics, with all their pros and their contras.
 
Can you explain this further? Is the purpose of a sentence to rehabilitate or to punish?
Both. A bad act doesn't wipe the rest of possible good acts that would be done, so the door to rehabilitate ought to be open always. However, the past good acts doesn't take out the bad act, and a bad action ought to be punished. It is a double edged sword.
 
Would you have ruled differently on the original sentencing order in relation to TNP vs. Whole India? If so, how?
I would but in a matter of processal methodology. I would first gotten a certain ruling on the evidence provided up to that point, and then made the ruling. Just so that no ends are left open.
 
I don't usually ask questions of other candidates in elections, but since I do not think it has been brought up, what are your views on the rule amendments recently referred to the Assembly for consultation (here)?
1) About the requeriment for Court about government officials.
It is a good way to encourage a more accessible and comprensible set of rulings and legislations, as well as a form of control to the publicity of the normative to be enforced.

2) About the extension to 14 days for oppinions.
There is a saying in Spain which translated says "Clothe me up slowly, that I'm in a rush" (Vísteme despacio, que tengo prisa). It says about how patience is key, and since in the court everything is of such high importance, patience and cold thinking would be the most important aspect, which this enforces.

3) About the Freedom of Information
I see this not as a mistake, but a failure for the adaptability, knowdlege and overall access to the legislation of the region. It is not a bad move, but not one I would make.

4) About the mechanism about vexatious actions
If the court decides that an action is not only lacking justification, but is also frivolous, it is obvious that the court ought to shut down said action. I would be in favour of this.
 
Thank you for your answers. You have my vote. I trust that you will do well in the position. :D
I shall do my best, as always! Thank you so much for the kind comments.
 
Back
Top