Govindia for Attorney General

[Govindia]

I am running for Attorney General.

I have a firm sense of justice, but I am also very fair and reasonable in this area.

I will help to ensure legitimate cases are heard where they have merit and will make sure the attorney general's office is efficient and effective.

Vote for me, Govindia, for Attorney General.

I will take questions at this time.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

How, Constitutionally, do you define a legitimate case?

Do you intend to respect the Court Ruling on case procedures or ignore the law of the land completely as Gross did?

 

[Govindia]

How, Constitutionally, do you define a legitimate case?

Do you intend to respect the Court Ruling on case procedures or ignore the law of the land completely as Gross did?

A case that has valid cause to take for prosecution vs. something frivolous. Basically, using common sense and rational judgment here.

And yes, I intend to respect the Court's ruling on case procedures.

 

[Flemingovia]

How, Constitutionally, do you define a legitimate case?

Do you intend to respect the Court Ruling on case procedures or ignore the law of the land completely as Gross did?

A case that has valid cause to take for prosecution vs. something frivolous. Basically, using common sense and rational judgment here.

And yes, I intend to respect the Court's ruling on case procedures.

You see, that's where it all gets tricky. Since you are running for AG you no doubt know that the constitution makes no provision for seriousness or frivolity, or the use of common sense and rational judgment.

So if you would ntend to not proceed with cases you regard as non-legitimate, what legal constiutional basis would you use to justify your actions?

Second question:

We have now in TNP a new court system, the Fiqh, which is based on common sense rather than legal minutiae, arbitration rather than the jack boots of authority and which, crucially, has proven itself capable of delivery rather than months of prevarication.

Evidence based observation would suggest that the current secular court system does not work. What makes you think you can succees where so many others have failed? Would you refer cases to the Fiqh should the constitutional system remain incapable of delivery?

 

[Govindia]

Under this ruling:

The Court opines the following:

As per the Legal Code it is the duty of the Attorney General to serve as the Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific. Currently all cases are brought to the Attorney General in order for their office to bring the charges directly to the Court. The refusal of bringing a case to Trial is not a duty given to the Attorney General in any legal document of the North Pacific including but not limited to the Constitution, Legal Code, or Bill of Rights. It is the belief of the Court that there is a fundamental issue with how the process currently works. Currently it is the belief of the Court that the Attorney General in refusing to take a case to trial is acting as a higher authority then what they are. While the Attorney General may not feel there is enough evidence to merit a trial it is still the belief of the Court that the decision on whether there is enough evidence should reside with said Court and not the Office of the Attorney General.

The Court suggests the following procedures be adopted for all trial proceedings:

1. The accuser files a complaint with the Attorney General.
2. The Attorney General Notifies the Defendant that a complaint has been filed against them.
3. Within 72 hours from the time the complaint is filed with the office of the Attorney General the Court shall be notified of the investigation into the matter by the Attorney General.
4. The investigation shall last no more than 5 days in which the Attorney General must ask for an indictment and present all evidence to the Court.
5. Within 72 hours for the request for an indictment the Court will determine if a Trial is merited based on the evidence alone.
6. Normal trial proceedings will begin at this point in time.

I would be obligated to bring all cases, no matter how frivolous, to the court unfortunately. While I feel there should be leeway with the Attorney General in deciding which cases are indictment worthy and which aren't, I would be legally obligated to send the case to the Court where they determine if there if sufficient cause for a trial or if it should be dismissed.

The Fiqh system is not actually more a court per se, but a arbitration hearing, and the arbitration area is voluntary. I may recommend it in certain civil cases but it is not currently recognised in TNP law as a form of legally resolving disputes.

 

[Flemingovia]

Thank you. Sensible, pragmatic answers.

 

[Govindia]

Thank you. Sensible, pragmatic answers.

Thank you.

If elected, I will see about bringing the Fiqh system as a form of arbitration court recognisable under TNP law.