Vivanco for Justice XI - In Ius Vocatio

[Vivanco]

In Ius Vocatio.
​

"To be called in Law", "In Ius Vocatio", is the motto under which I will run on the current elections. For those that know me, they may already see the writing on the wall, on why I've chosen this motto. But to those who do not, allow me to introduce myself, as I have done many times in the past.

I am Vivanco, I have been in the region for the past 6 years (and counting), and from its start, I have been in interest of the legal world of the region. At the time I was but a simple Law student, and my expertise was but lacking, but being given the courage to run by Dinoium as Attorney General (a constitutional office that used to exist in TNP until the AGORA Act), that was my entry to the Legal Sphere of the region. And my experience in the spot was tough, and I must say that from mistakes, we learn. From that experience, from being the last Attorney General, I moved to different spots within the region; Speaker Staff, Deputy Speaker, Senior Diplomat, Deputy Minister in a variety of ministries...
And then I was chosen to be part of the Court in a few times, and reach even the point of being the Chief Justice. I was also part of the initial Bar Commission, and the region's first Court Examiner, and I have served as both Stand-in Hearing Officer and Temporary Hearing Officer, and I have served, although briefly, as General Counselor to the Delegate.

It is fair to say that I have an extensive experience in the field of law in the region, and all the while, I finished my studies in law, working every day with it IRL, which I presume would give me a level of maturity and knowledge on some of the matters at hand.

The law is important to me, th make sure it is correctly interpreted and to have a good management, I would ask as I have done in the past, to you, citizens of TNP, to grant me your trust once more.​

 

[Cloud]

You have my support! Good luck, Viv o7

 

[Vivanco]

You have my support! Good luck, Viv o7

Thank you for the support!

 

[Simone]

Good luck with the race.

 

[Lord Nwahs]

Did you design your own logo for this campaign?

Thoughts on the AGORA Act? Should TNPers elect AGs again?

 

[Robespierre]

I will vote for you.

 

[Vivanco]

Good luck with the race.

Thank you, Simone!

Did you design your own logo for this campaign?

Oh, I wish! No. This lovely design was made (and commissioned to) my good friend Quinmael!

Thoughts on the AGORA Act?

My thoughts have been changing as time has moved on. At first, I was against it, because the alternative seemed far away, but now that we have an active Bar and a Court Examiner, I believe that, at least for the time being, the need of an Attorney General has been appeased.

Should TNPers elect AGs again?

That is up to the Regional Assembly to decide. But, I believe we have evolved legally past the Attorney General's office. For now, at least.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I think the opinions of the Court you have wrote have been in criminal matters (though may be mistaken), are you interested in authoring an opinion in a request for review?

 

[Vivanco]

I think the opinions of the Court you have wrote have been in criminal matters (though may be mistaken), are you interested in authoring an opinion in a request for review?

I am! I haven't gotten the proper opportunity to do so. I was given the option this time, but I seem to have missed it and the intention. There's always next time, and I am absolutely interested!

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Do you want a crack at any of these?

What would you do if you were a Justice and saw that a request for review that looked like this has been posted in the Court’s (both in terms of what practical steps you would take and how you might ultimately decide on it (if you can)):

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The Delegate suppressed my friends posts and then banned them when they asked why they got suppressed

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

It is against free speech and not democratic to ban them when all they did was ask about what the delegate was doing the delegate should be allowed to be asked what they are doing with there power without being able to ban someone

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

I don’t know

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

My friend has been banned and if I post about it I think the delegate would ban me too and I don’t think that is fair

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

Yes the delegate should follow the law and free speech

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

No

What would you do if you were a Justice and saw that a request for review that looked like this has been posted in the Court’s (both in terms of what practical steps you would take and how you might ultimately decide on it (if you can)):

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The delegate banned someone and then would not tell me why when I asked them

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

It is against freedom of information and not democratic to keep secret why someone gets banned the delegate should be allowed to be asked what they are doing with there power

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

this one https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195825/#post-10494892 the delegate is not allowed to keep things secret

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

It is my freedom of information to know

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

Yes the delegate should follow the law and have freedom of information

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

No

It is the second day of the voting period of a general election. There is one candidate for Speaker: Xyvet. A resident nation sends a telegram to all citizens entitled to vote in the election. The telegram says that citizens should not vote for Xyvet because they were convicted of gross misconduct. It recommends voting for reopening nominations so that another candidate, Yyvet, can run. It says citizens have to act quickly if they don’t want a criminal as Speaker because voting ends tomorrow. Xyvet has not been convicted of any crime.

The Delegate ejects and bans the nation from the region. They post a notice stating that this action was performed because the telegram showed the nation would violate the Delegate’s RMB policy.

Could any nation be subject to criminal charges in relation to the matters described and, if so, what charges could they be subject to?

 

[SkyTheAquariusOP]

region's first Court Examiner

That's cool! What was your job? What do you think was the most important thing you did when you were the first Court Examiner?

 

[Vivanco]

Do you want a crack at any of these?

Sure! Let's go one by one.

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The Delegate suppressed my friends posts and then banned them when they asked why they got suppressed

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

It is against free speech and not democratic to ban them when all they did was ask about what the delegate was doing the delegate should be allowed to be asked what they are doing with there power without being able to ban someone

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

I don’t know

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

My friend has been banned and if I post about it I think the delegate would ban me too and I don’t think that is fair

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

Yes the delegate should follow the law and free speech

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

No

​

On this, I would see On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party, as before going in depth into the matter, it is in the interest of the Court that the person that submits the R4R has a proper standing. In this case, that's established on the fourth point of the R4R.

The Court opines that an affected party, with respect to one’s the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government.

In this case, the affected party wouldn't be the person who redacted said R4R, but their friend, as their own rights haven't been infringed through either action or inaction of the government. We could arguie if there has been a breach of freedom of speech on the Delegate's actions, but that won't be, since this R4R would probably be rejected due to lack of standing from the person who presented such.

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The delegate banned someone and then would not tell me why when I asked them

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

It is against freedom of information and not democratic to keep secret why someone gets banned the delegate should be allowed to be asked what they are doing with there power

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

this one https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195825/#post-10494892 the delegate is not allowed to keep things secret

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

It is my freedom of information to know

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

Yes the delegate should follow the law and have freedom of information

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

No

Same as before, first we must examine standing. Unlike the first case, they claim it is their freedom of information to know, but they don't claim any part of the Constitution, BoR, LC or other legal document as basis for the Review. In no part of the Bill of Rights it is mentioned amongst the freedoms of The North Pacific. It is, however, in the Legal Code with an established mechanism to request information of what goes on in the government bodies.
However, the prior ruling mentioned by the interested party has its own downfall.

[...] it is only through the Freedom of Information Act in the Legal Code that nations may access undisclosed information; that is, the Freedom of Information Act governs the transparency of the governmental authorities, and specifies procedures on how to access undisclosed information.

At no point we have been told or know if the FOIA was requested, if such was the case, instead of a R4R, it should have been a Request for Information to the Court according to the Legal Code Section 7.4.37.

It is the second day of the voting period of a general election. There is one candidate for Speaker: Xyvet. A resident nation sends a telegram to all citizens entitled to vote in the election. The telegram says that citizens should not vote for Xyvet because they were convicted of gross misconduct. It recommends voting for reopening nominations so that another candidate, Yyvet, can run. It says citizens have to act quickly if they don’t want a criminal as Speaker because voting ends tomorrow. Xyvet has not been convicted of any crime.

The Delegate ejects and bans the nation from the region. They post a notice stating that this action was performed because the telegram showed the nation would violate the Delegate’s RMB policy.

Could any nation be subject to criminal charges in relation to the matters described and, if so, what charges could they be subject to?

Election law! Oh, I've missed you!
The Legal Code establishes the following:

12. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of residents with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.

We find here a willful deception of residents about a running candidate, about this time of their standing as a lawful resident.
At the moment of committing the crime, the nation was a resident of the region (I assume, since they are ban-jected). And even if they are no longer present, they could potentially still be trialed, as we see according to On the Reconsideration of the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code.

If a former resident or non-resident is alleged to have committed a criminal act and is indicted for it, but does not accept the indictment and trial, they can be tried in absentia in accordance with the ordinary regulations for a trial.

 

[Vivanco]

That's cool! What was your job? What do you think was the most important thing you did when you were the first Court Examiner?

The role of the Court Examiner is that of investigating, reviewing and presenting before the Court potentially outdated rulings in order to "unify" and make the region's laws and rulings coherent with eachother and with the evolution of the region's ever-growing legal being, with the fact that they enjoy of universal standing on the matters.

I would believe that one of the most important things I did was submitting the R4R about On the Definition of Treaties and Delegate's Authority to Sanction Residents