AG Reform Bill

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Legal Code Chapter 4 Section 1:
Section 3.1: The Attorney General
2. The Attorney General will be elected during Judicial Elections.
3. The Attorney General must not have been convicted of any crime in the North Pacific.
4. The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.
5. It is the duty of the Attorney General to appoint a Deputy when they take office, and to recuse themselves from prosecution of any case they have an interest in.
6. It is the duty of any Prosecutor to only prosecute cases where they believe the charges have merit.
5 7. It is the duty of the Attorney General any Prosecutor to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting.
6 8. If the original Attorney General Prosecutor is unable to complete a pending case, the successor serving Attorney General will take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings.
7 9. The Attorney General may request expedited judicial review of any executive action by any official.
Click to expand...
 
What this does not address is the problem of things being filed that are not appropriate for the Court to hear, either because the matter does not involve a violation of TNP law (or is more appropriately a forum moderation matter), or the evidence is facially insufficient.
If the current Court wants to be the gatekeeper, a more logical way is to require the Court to make these evaluations first, and then send the cases that have a real basis in TNP law, and sufficient evidence to show that there is a real basis to the AG to then file an indictment.
The second thing this lacks is an explicit provision to require any Justice who has an interest in a case to recuse themselves, and a provision requiring Justices not to comment on any matter in which they may have to sit as a member of the Court.

If we're not going to recognize common sense, then we'd better write this stuff down.
 
and a provision requiring Justices not to comment on any matter in which they may have to sit as a member of the Court.
Click to expand...

So if you're a Justice, you're not allowed to talk about anything, ever. You might have to deal with it in Court later.

What this does not address is the problem of things being filed that are not appropriate for the Court to hear, either because the matter does not involve a violation of TNP law (or is more appropriately a forum moderation matter), or the evidence is facially insufficient.
Click to expand...

I believe the three sitting Justices are capable of determining which court manners are appropriate to hear and which are not in the "discovery" phase of the proceedings. To suggest otherwise would be to imply that no one in the Justice positions, past, present, or future, are able to determine these facts amongst themselves and yet, somehow, the Attorney Justice can do just that all by their lonesome. That's a rather curious claim.

If we're not going to recognize common sense, then we'd better write this stuff down.
Click to expand...

I thought you didn't believe in common sense?

Gross:
There is no time limit on deciding to file a case, there is nothing in the constitution, the legal code, the court rules, or in common sense that sets a deadline.
Click to expand...
 
Blue Wolf, taking positions on things that may come before the Court creates a unfair bias, so yes, they shouldn't comment on matters that might come before the Court in a case because it shows that they are not impartial on the case, or appear not to be impartial.
Since you seem to have a problem controlling yourself in a common sense way, such a provision makes a lot of sense.
 
My opinion before was based upon the law, my opinion as a Justice was also based upon the law. Just because you don't agree or like my opinion doesn't make me bias.
 
It is the act of commenting about the specifics that creates the bias, and conveys the appearance of having bias that any litigant would feel put them before a biased Court.

It is better not to convey that appearance while sitting on the Court.

It's different for a prosecutor because the vary nature of the office requires being ablr to advocate a position.
 
#6 is wayyyy too nebulous Eluvatar.

An AG could stonewall any case he saw fit, as we've seen with Grosse, and that's not what we want at all. I can't support any change with #6 included.
 
Agreed that 6. is to ambiguous. Ideally I think the AG should be returned to sit under the Delegate (as it should be an Executive not judicial position) and then add the ability for someone whose complaint is rejected by the AG to petition the Delegate as a degree of check on the AG?
 
That the AG is elected separately from the Delegate (plural executives exist in most US states for example) and just happens to have its offices located in the judicial forums doesn't make it any less of an executive officer in its actual functions, so that particular issue is a bit of a red herring. You can allow appeal to another body regardless of whether or not the AG is under the Delegate.
 
Even if you do classify it as a judicial office, what arbitrary theoretical label you want to apply to its functions (part of a plural executive, judicial, prosecutorial) doesn't change what the actual powers of the AG are. We shouldn't fall into the mindset that just because we tweak something to fit a certain theory of branches of government without changing the AG's substantial powers that it'll improve things. As far as I can tell the major issue here is which cases the AG should be obligated to prosecute, which is an entirely different question from whether the AG is independent or under the Delegate.
 
Wow. this whole thing just reads like a bitchslap to the current justices. Basically it seems to be written to overrule their recent ruling.
 
Why not just elect two Attorney Generals, either of whom may prosecute a case, rather than have one, mandated to appoint a deputy?
 
I think we've got a conflict here - we've got the common sense that states the AG should not be obligate to prosecute every single case brought to them as some are very frivolous and have no merit to them at all. Equally, we've got the repusion at the utter refusal of the last AG to prosecute any case.

Perhaps we can find some sort of flexible middle ground, where the AG is obligated to prosecute any case except when it is clear there is absolutely no merit at all. The AG would have to provide reasons for their decision, and if there is any doubt it should go to the courts either as a case or as a legal review to clarify, if, for example, it is outside the Court's jurisdiction. I'm also internally debating as to whether some method of challenge is appropriate - perhaps through the "deputy" or "alternative" AG if we decide to formalise that (which I also think is wise).

If I've rambled, ask me - I've got a cold and have been cooped up for days so might be prone to it <_<
 
Could we perhaps edit #6 so that there is a presumption in favour of the AGs decision but a motion can be made by the RA and a subsequent vote to force a prosecution?

Just a thought.
 
Or, instead of the RA, how about the Justices so we don't have miles of red tape to cut through. Besides, if all the Justices want to hear the case, it probably has merit, wouldn't you think?
 
If elected AG, I certainly shall ask the justices for input...utilize them as a grand jury of sorts. So many ways to skin the cat and uphold the ideals of justice. Indeed, the present legal system is really flexible, it just takes someone with some imagination to get things done and done with justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top