Confirmation of Vivanco as Bar Commissioner

St George

St George

RolePlay Moderator
-
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him, They/Them
Lord Dominator:
The Court has selected @Vivanco to be appointed as a Bar Commissioner subject to a confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
The Court has nominated @Vivanco to the Bar Commission. I now open the floor for debate and discussion on the nominations. I would welcome a statement in support of the nomination from @Lord Dominator or from any member of the Court.

If and when this comes to vote, I intend to put the following motion before the Regional Assembly:
The Regional Assembly, acting on the nomination of the Court, appoints Vivanco to the Bar Commission.
Click to expand...
 
To be quite honest, Vivanco was one of our first discussed choices (and one of the others was appointed anyways) - there isn’t any particular reason I’ve seen to doubt their ability or willingness to serve, and they’ve certainly expressed as much.
 
I will say my list of merits to those in doubts of my experience with Law in general and Law in NS.
  • Graduate in Law in the University of Burgos
  • Practices in the Burgos' Illustrious Bar Association ( Ilustrísimo Colegio de Procuradores )
  • Thesis done about Labour Law ( Working conditions on Uber Delivery workers and the likes )
  • Former (And last) Attorney General of TNP
  • Former Law Clerk in Europeia
  • Former Justice of TNP
  • Former Chief Justice of TNP
  • Former Prosecutor for TNP
  • Former Speaker Staff in the "Know Your Laws" Project
  • Former Deputy Speaker for TNP
  • Legislator of several amendments of the Legal Code
I will open myself to any questions from the public and thank the Court for thinking of me in their decision.
 
It makes perfect sense to me to bring Vivanco onto the bar commission, considering that for a long time, they have been a champion of this sot of institution and I believe that people who are passionate and believe in the work should serve on the commission, especially the inaugural one. I have no notes - I cannot wait to see the commission's work and your personal stamp on it. If you hadn't already been selected by the Court, you absolutely would have been my choice.
 
I do have a question for you though, @Vivanco. The law establishing the Bar Commission says that it must establish a standard evaluation for admittance to the regional bar. As you will have the privilege of serving as one of the first Bar Commissioners, you will have an important role to play in being among the first to establish this evaluation. What do you envision this evaluation being (format, questions etc.) and what do you think it is important that this evaluation tests for?
 
I also have questions. @Vivanco would you describe TNP law as being like Civil Law, Common Law, something in between (closer to which), or something else?

What makes TNP Law legitimate, and how does that differ from Europeian Law?

Which is your favorite clause of TNP's bill of rights, and why?

Which is your least favorite, and why?

What makes (or doesn't make) the RMB Guidelines legal? Effectual? Why?

Which is superior, the Court Rules or the Judicial Law? Why?

How can treaties be amended? How have they been historically? How could they be amended in future, without changing TNP's laws?

What happens when a treaty requires TNP to criminalize behavior? Can treaties criminalize behavior under TNP law that doesn't become criminal under the other parties law, and how?

Is TNP Court more of an adversarial, inquisitorial, or other kind of system of justice? Why?
 
I motion this to vote!

(Also it's okay, someone needs to second it before it actually goes to vote.)
 
Last edited:
Before answering to Comfed's question, since I believe it needs more time to give a proper answer, I'll answer to Elu's.

Eluvatar:
I also have questions. @Vivanco would you describe TNP law as being like Civil Law, Common Law, something in between (closer to which), or something else?
Click to expand...
This is something I have debated in the past, and I can confirm that TNP law is something in between. The importance of case-law is one of the strongest, but that doesn't leave the codification and regular laws from having the importance. Such balance between jurisdiction and legislation tells us it's the in-between.
Eluvatar:
What makes TNP Law legitimate, and how does that differ from Europeian Law?
Click to expand...
It's been quite a while since I've been familiar with Europeian Law, be that 2-3 years ago, but I'd say that Europeian Law is more reliant on the legislation rather than in the case-law, which is the contrary in our case.
And what makes TNP law legitimate?
It's people.
The legitimacy of actions can only come from the people. The Constitution was voted by the Regional Assembly in 2012. In that same year, the Legal Code was voted. The Bill of Rights, in 2007.
Democracy is the biggest pillar of our region, and we must be proud to say we have a legitimate source of law as it comes from the people.
Eluvatar:
Which is your favorite clause of TNP's bill of rights, and why?
Click to expand...
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
Click to expand...
It can seem obvious, but having it "set in stone" the fact that we have the right to a fair trial by an impartial person, and a presumption of innocence is something to like, just as the posibility of representation and the proportionality of punishment.
Eluvatar:
Which is your least favorite, and why?
Click to expand...
I like all of the BoR. If so, maybe establish some limits in article 2. I understand freedom is really important.
But all needs limits, and I think we can all agree some things are over and beyond what freedom of speech is and means to protect.
Eluvatar:
What makes (or doesn't make) the RMB Guidelines legal? Effectual? Why?
Click to expand...
Section 7.2 of the Legal Code establishes the following:
17. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.
Click to expand...
So, this freedom of regulation is legally in the hands of the Delegate. It is delegate ran such guidelines and the appointment of Gameside Advocates. By such, it is effectively legal.
Eluvatar:
Which is superior, the Court Rules or the Judicial Law? Why?
Click to expand...
I'll need a better description of the question.
Eluvatar:
Is TNP Court more of an adversarial, inquisitorial, or other kind of system of justice? Why?
Click to expand...
TNP's process is not iniciated by a public service. Anyone can present an indictment, which theorically starts the procedure. With that fact alone, we can discard the theory of the Inquisitorial System, since that needs that the process starts by a public officer.
However, the tribunal is not formed by "members of society", by jury, but by specialized public officers. That discards a system Purely Adversarial.
We have, as most places in the world, a mixed system, or Adversarial by Formality.
To avoid the partiality of the judge (That is found within the inquisitorial system), we have the figure of the prosecution.
The Trial is public, and with a clear conflcit, typical of the adversarial, and we use Justices, specialized public officers.
So we have a mixed system that leans into the Adversarial system more than into the Inquisitorial system.

I will answer the rest of the questions tomorrow!
 
For those in curiosity regarding my last answer:

ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM:
First existing procedural form in time, with subsequent reappearance in the nineteenth century from the enactment of the Code d'instruction criminelle in France inspired by English institutions: validity of the principles of contradiction and publicity.
In its origin it derives from the private conception of Criminal Law as the right of the offended in a similar way to the civil process; however, with the appearance of public crimes, the criminal process is separated from the civil one and the figure of the accuser arises, first as a popular prosecutor (investigation and prosecution of the punishable act by a representative of society) and later as the public prosecutor.
Features:
◦ Process is not initiated by a judge (ex officio) but by an accuser.
◦ The Judge or court is made up of members of society (Jury).
◦ Validity of the principles of contradiction, orality and publicity and single instance
◦ No precautionary measures are imposed.

INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM:
System introduced with the reception of the Roman-canonical process, with the prosecution of flagrant crimes taking place by the ex officio judge himself.
Attribution of the accusation to a public body, with functions of accusation and prosecution.
Features:
◦ Process is initiated ex officio by a public body
◦ Judging function is specialized and attributed to a jurisdictional body
◦ Written and secret procedure, with greater probative limitations; There is also no equality between the parties since the power of the accuser-judge is absolute, unlike the accusatory and/or adversarial process. Validity of the principle of double instance or appeal.
◦ Pre-trial detention is established as a precautionary measure
 
Vivanco:
I'll need a better description of the question.
Click to expand...
If there is a process dispute in a case, and one side relies more on the rules, and the other relies more on the law, which side should generally win out? (Alternatively, if there is an apparent conflict between the rules and the laws, which document should be favored in resolving it?)
 
Comfed:
I do have a question for you though, @Vivanco. The law establishing the Bar Commission says that it must establish a standard evaluation for admittance to the regional bar. As you will have the privilege of serving as one of the first Bar Commissioners, you will have an important role to play in being among the first to establish this evaluation. What do you envision this evaluation being (format, questions etc.) and what do you think it is important that this evaluation tests for?
Click to expand...
This is something I've been struggling to answer for a few days now, and I've now realiced why. Because it's something that will need discussion with the rest of members such as @Zyvetskistaahn .
But in my honest opinion, the most efficient version could be a set of questions to prove a proper knowledge of the legality of the region, and then some practice test, to see both the theory and the pratice.
It's important for that, to ensure that a minimu of quality and knowledge is set for the members. This is as best I can answer at this time without being part of the Bar Commission, since things may change at the time.
 
Eluvatar:
How can treaties be amended? How have they been historically? How could they be amended in future, without changing TNP's laws?
Click to expand...
Depends on the treaty.

Let's go with the example of the Unicorn Star Treaty.
This is a treaty signed between The North Pacific and The Rejected Realms, and in its article 6 we find the following:
2. This treaty may be amended by concurrent resolution of both parties' authorised legislative authorities.
Click to expand...

Something similar can be found in the Taijitu-North Pacific alliance in its Section Four
1. This treaty may be amended by mutual consent through the normal ratification processes of the two signatories.
2. Either party shall give a week's notice prior to withdrawing from the treaty.
3. Either party shall exhaust all reasonable diplomatic options before withdrawing from the treaty
Click to expand...

We find too something of the likes in the Treaty of the Northern Passage between TNP and Europe in its Section Five
2. This treaty may be amended by concurrent resolution of both parties' authorised legislative authorities.
Click to expand...

The rest of the treaties do not have any concrete process by which they can be amended.
As it stands, there is no "de facto" procedure for the amendments of Treaties without considering them as Laws as per the Constitution.
 
Eluvatar:
If there is a process dispute in a case, and one side relies more on the rules, and the other relies more on the law, which side should generally win out? (Alternatively, if there is an apparent conflict between the rules and the laws, which document should be favored in resolving it?)
Click to expand...
In the case of conflict between rules and the laws, I believe it should be the laws who have the primacy over the rules. FOr this I will refer to Kelsen's Pyramid of Hierarchy of Law.
On the top we wil have the fundamental law, the Constitution. Nothing can go against it, of course. It is the base for the legal system.
Then we have the laws, who have this high state because of their democratic nature, coming from the sovereignity of the people.
And under these we have the rules, who do not come from the general assembly of the people, but from the specific organ who manages it as a secondary set of principles.

So, it should win the rules.
 
Eluvatar:
What happens when a treaty requires TNP to criminalize behavior? Can treaties criminalize behavior under TNP law that doesn't become criminal under the other parties law, and how?
Click to expand...
For this, the best example I can think of is The Convention on Off Site Property Security.
When that treaty is signed, we have to add to our system the set of crimes needed, in this example being Spamming, Crashing and Phishing.
They can criminalize behaviour by effectively adding it to our already stablished penal system, much like in the real world European Directives that establish what to do and it is the responsability of the signatories to add it to their legal system.
 
Eluvatar:
Can treaties criminalize behavior under TNP law that doesn't become criminal under the other parties law, and how?
Click to expand...
Like in the film Forrest Gump, every treaty is like a box of chocolates, there is not two equals.
Every treaty is different, as we have seen before when regarding amendments, so it wouldn't surprise me that such thing can happen.
How? Well, in the writing of the treaty on itself. I like working with examples so let's go with one.
Let's say, for some reason, TNP signs a treaty in which one of the articles says "The North Pacific shall add murder as a criminal offence". (Just a hypothesis to explain how this might take place)
That article criminalizes behavior under TNP law and doesn't necesarily becomme criminal on the rest of parties due to the fact of the article regarding only to TNP.
This is one of the ways it could happen. We don't have any part of our legal code for International Law, so this is the best I could imagine.
 
I was hoping you'd twig to a couple of unusual things with TNP law: TNP's definition of treason includes making war on our allies, as well as on our region itself. Our definition of Espionage also includes our allies.

This is not universally reciprocated.
 
Eluvatar:
I was hoping you'd twig to a couple of unusual things with TNP law: TNP's definition of treason includes making war on our allies, as well as on our region itself. Our definition of Espionage also includes our allies.

This is not universally reciprocated.
Click to expand...
Oh, it seems like I have misunderstood the question then. My apologies!
 
Seeing a motion and a second, the vote will begin sometime after I finish building this desk.
 
The desk is built and this will be going to vote in 45 minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top