AG's Desk

All questions are welcome. I'll note the following currently, however:

The cases against B Wolf and Sir Governmental will not be prosecuted by this office as these nations have ceased to exist. This office will see TNP v Grosse to its conclusion and then pursue the many active complaints against King Durk the Awesome aka JAL.

I have also cleaned up this forum a bit - let's try to keep it that way.

Kiwi:

All questions are welcome. I'll note the following currently, however:

The cases against B Wolf and Sir Governmental will not be prosecuted by this office as these nations have ceased to exist. This office will see TNP v Grosse to its conclusion and then pursue the many active complaints against King Durk the Awesome aka JAL.

I have also cleaned up this forum a bit - let's try to keep it that way.

Click to expand...

Does this mean the ag's office (note, not the ag himself) intends to pursue only one case at a time?

flemingovia:

Kiwi:

All questions are welcome. I'll note the following currently, however:

The cases against B Wolf and Sir Governmental will not be prosecuted by this office as these nations have ceased to exist. This office will see TNP v Grosse to its conclusion and then pursue the many active complaints against King Durk the Awesome aka JAL.

I have also cleaned up this forum a bit - let's try to keep it that way.

Click to expand...

Does this mean the ag's office (note, not the ag himself) intends to pursue only one case at a time?

Click to expand...

A good question. I put out a request for assistance and Chasmanthe kindly has offered his help.

No one else currently is available to speed up the process further. However, I will continue with TNP v Grosse and while that is happening Chasmanthe and I will work towards getting the rather huge case against JAL up and going. Once the groundwork has been completed for the prosecution against JAL I will prosecute it.

The final two active cases involving Funkadelia and Karp will hopefully then be split between Chas and myself.

Realistically, I don't foresee JAL's case finishing before the end of the term but I will attempt to prosecute the cases concurrently if possible to speed up matters.

It all depends how things go. Basically I would like to do as much as possible to speed things up but I need to have input in these cases to see that they are prosecuted properly. Having looked in the AG's Office, i can see that during Gaspo's term there were many cases assigned to deputies that were not prosecuted properly (or at times not at all).

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone!

As I continue my term as Attorney General I want to note down a few of my musings and current developments so that everyone knows what is currently happening in the Office of the Attorney General.

I'm currently actively pursuing a FOI request so that my office (and any future defence counsel for that matter) can better understand the offence of fraud and the Court's rationale for the decision made. Ironically I wouldn't have decided any differently myself, the requisite intentional deception would be difficult enough to prove in the most obvious of cases and there was little to no hope in this case of doing so. However, I wouldn't be against the possibility of a new office or civil wrong encapsulating defamation (essentially what arguably occurred in TNP v Grosseschnauzer) but this is a matter for the RA. I'm equally disappointed that I had to prosecute this case, given I felt that the requisite intentional deception was lacking from day one. This compulsory part of prosecuting is perhaps another area that needs further reform.

I know also that there are many of you that disagree with my decision to represent COE and hand the prosecuting of said case onto someone else. The truth is that I could have assisted in COE's defence and simply handed the case onto my deputy and no one would have been the wiser. It's my firm belief that a citizen of TNP should have their counsel of first choice where possible. Beyond that, I could have simply done what other Attorney General's have done before me and ignored the case through my entire tenure. Indeed, it was at the bottom of the list of cases and although it sort specific performance in a restricted timeframe, I am under no obligation to bring the action within an allotted timeframe. As I understand it, my actions were honest and upfront. As soon as I saw it, I alerted the relevant parties that I would not be prosecuting it so that any special remedy sought in the action would still be achievable. I understand that many of you do not agree with this decision and I respect that there are those of you who think it should perhaps be a question you ask prospective Attorney Generals and perhaps it should be.

I will be slowly working on evidence / notes for the upcoming JAL trial. It is going to be a monster so any assistance or evidence is welcome. There are two reasons, however that I do not just submit the indictment to the Court right now. Primarily because I believe that the prosecution needs to have a solid platform from which to work. I will note down my feelings on any legal arguments or offences that I think are applicable and if I am unable to bring it to trial within my tenure, the next Attorney General will be able to pick up where I left off. Secondly because now is a good time for the Court to work on adjusting the Court rules and it would then be my hope that the reformed Court rules would be used in the following trial but that of course is up to the Court.

As always, feel free to leave me a message here, via forum PM or get in touch on IRC if you have any questions, concerns, problems or whatever else.

Once again have a Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.

[me]
Attorney General
The North Pacific

As I see it, when someone takes on the role of AG, then that ought to be their highest priority. They owe it to the electorate. After all - nobody forced them into the job, they actively campaigned to get it.

Therefore it seems odd for a serving AG to choose to take a position on the defence team, effectively delegating the prosecution to a deputy.

I read your post above as saying "yes, I was prepared to neglect the office I was elected to. But just count yourself lucky I did not lie about it or delay the case as well."

Unimpressed.

flemingovia:

As I see it, when someone takes on the role of AG, then that ought to be their highest priority. They owe it to the electorate. After all - nobody forced them into the job, they actively campaigned to get it.

Therefore it seems odd for a serving AG to choose to take a position on the defence team, effectively delegating the prosecution to a deputy.

I read your post above as saying "yes, I was prepared to neglect the office I was elected to. But just count yourself lucky I did not lie about it or delay the case as well."

Unimpressed.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, the legal code contemplates an Attorney General could enter the office having opted to be defence counsel simply to avoid a trial he knows is going to happen. Countless AGs have opted to simply not try cases in their term that they do not agree with and yet your disdain has been woefully lacking in those instances.

I could have delegated the prosecution to my hearts content whether or not I opted to be defence counsel.

Regardless, I do not recall a time where you have ever voted for me so I will not lose any sleep over it.

If you feel I have violated my oath in any way, shape or form, you more than anyone are aware of the options available to rectify such a situation.

Now there's an interesting thought to ponder: can an AG act as a defense attorney in a criminal case or an attorney in general in civil cases.

While it is true a defendant has the absolute right in a criminal case or litigant in a civil case can choose absolutely anyone or even himself to act as council in private or in the court that right does not extend to council being allowed to represent someone in a case if a conflict of interest exists.

A conflict of interest could be choosing a potential witness as council, or an officer of the court being chosen as council. An AG or a Judge cannot function as an attorney in terms of a defense attorney in a criminal case nor council in a civil case for a litigant as it can be construed as a conflict of interest in terms of 'exerting undue influence' over the court. Any prosecutor in his right mind would be screaming conflict of interest if a judge were to suddenly turn up as a defense attorney or council in a civil case. The potential for a judge sitting on a case or a prosecutor to wittingly or unwittingly render favor to such a council would be too great. One would have to resign their position as a Justice or AG in order to act as council to avoid such a conflict of interest in strict terms of legal principle.

However, that said, in TNP we have limited resources and the nature of TNP law such an exception would not be unreasonable. A hiatus could be taken and a new AG or justice could be appointed in the interim, which, in fact, is actually provided for in Court Rules, etc., but a conflict of interest could be implied if the AG was privy to any evidence beforehand by the AG's office. But the defense would have to bring the issue up and prove an actual conflict in terms of TNP Law.

I agree with Flem regarding priorities of the AG. While our constibillicode does 'allow' the AG to be a defense attorney I do not believe the spirit of the law was for the AG to decide to be a defense attorney for particular cases.

I disagreed with the decision to serve as defense counsel. However, I feel that Punk Daddy informing Kiwi of his responsibilities as Attorney General is a little rich. Especially for someone who has supposedly retired and is no longer a citizen.

At least the AG is attempting to pursue the cases this time around.

Roman, your assertions on COIs are pretty speculative. There's no actual requirement that any AG or judge resign before serving as counsel.

I see no problem with an AG offering to serve as defense counsel for a trial that would not occur until some time in the unknown, indefinite future. It would perhaps be different if they suddenly backed out of a case that was about to start in order to serve on the defense, having presumably had plenty of time to announce that previously.

mcmasterdonia:

I disagreed with the decision to serve as defense counsel. However, I feel that Punk Daddy informing Kiwi of his responsibilities as Attorney General is a little rich. Especially for someone who has supposedly retired and is no longer a citizen.

At least the AG is attempting to pursue the cases this time around.

Click to expand...

I am retired, doesn't mean I can't comment on the goings on does it? If we didn't have old people who would complain?



Any how, my last time as AG I just didn't have the strength to fight, but I admit that and don't justify it. Kiwi is justifying his actions or rather rationalizing them. I tried to steer clear of that during my time, for better or worse.

SillyString:

Roman, your assertions on COIs are pretty speculative. There's no actual requirement that any AG or judge resign before serving as counsel.

I see no problem with an AG offering to serve as defense counsel for a trial that would not occur until some time in the unknown, indefinite future. It would perhaps be different if they suddenly backed out of a case that was about to start in order to serve on the defense, having presumably had plenty of time to announce that previously.

Click to expand...

As I said in my post, in TNP it's not really an issue.

punk d:

mcmasterdonia:

I disagreed with the decision to serve as defense counsel. However, I feel that Punk Daddy informing Kiwi of his responsibilities as Attorney General is a little rich. Especially for someone who has supposedly retired and is no longer a citizen.

At least the AG is attempting to pursue the cases this time around.

Click to expand...

I am retired, doesn't mean I can't comment on the goings on does it? If we didn't have old people who would complain?



Any how, my last time as AG I just didn't have the strength to fight, but I admit that and don't justify it. Kiwi is justifying his actions or rather rationalizing them. I tried to steer clear of that during my time, for better or worse.

Click to expand...

As per usual, McMasterdonia and I are roughly of the same opinion.

I did what I thought was best at the time and I stick by it. Am I trying to justify it? I don't know about that. I'm saying that other people have done worse in this office and you're singling me out. It's particularly hypocritical of you PunkD for a number of reasons.

Firstly you were an incredibly unpopular/dysfunctional justice in your time (from what I understand) which certainly can't have helped the administration of Justice.

Secondly, I campaigned with the understanding that you would take TNP v Grosse and I could jump straight into TNP v JAL so I would have ample time to deal with it over my summer break. As soon as you saw another AG coming, you thought "oh here's my way out" and "retired". You haven't retired though. You still have your admin masking, you are lobbing pot shots from the cheap seats and seem to have more than enough time to comment yet you had no time to partake in the trial. It's great if you want to stay around but please do not critique my actions and expect an explanation when you can't even justify your own. A point you seem to concede yourself.

I can see why our AGs don't last very long. I've spent hours on TNP v Grosse (a case I didn't even think should have been prosecuted) and only ONE person has had anything positive to say. Just a few things to keep in mind.

In case I haven't made this clear elsewhere, I respect the work you've put into TNP v Grosse and I admire your dedication.

Obviously, as defense counsel, I had some issues with some of your arguments / tactics, but that's to be expected

I am very grateful however that that case is now done with, properly, and we can all move on to better things.

Eluvatar:

In case I haven't made this clear elsewhere, I respect the work you've put into TNP v Grosse and I admire your dedication.

Obviously, as defense counsel, I had some issues with some of your arguments / tactics, but that's to be expected

I am very grateful however that that case is now done with, properly, and we can all move on to better things.

Click to expand...

Haha thanks Elu. I think I pointed out already how impressed I was with how you did considering time restraints etc as well

What does my time as justice have anything to do with this case? McM didn't mention my justice experience. Stop trying to justify yourself by deflecting on me.

You're a public official which means your decisions will be put up for public review. I am not the only person who found your decision to represent COE to be bad; I might just be the loudest.

As for this case, check the trial thread where I asked off the case. I gave no excuse, because there is none. My last time as AG I give myself an F for not doing what I said I would do. Who cares what reasons were, I didn't get it done. Period. Calling me out on not doing my job doesn't justify you not doing yours (in my opinion) with respect to the potential COE case.

As for retiring, I'm loving retirement. I like being admin and being able to just focus on admin duties. I'm keeping 3 nations alive, Punk Daddy, Punk Reloaded, and Big D Baby. I am not involved in the government of any region perhaps other than the Meritocracy which is refounding...by the by. I am also an admin there too.

I view retirement as not being active in-game in terms of government positions. That's my view of retirement. Others might have a different view. But I don't see retirement as not having opinions on what's going on.

You're not a citizen, something which you seem to take pride in. You have no place commenting on the performance of TNP government officials in citizen areas - and no real place commenting anywhere else, given that you've explicitly renounced membership in the public which Kiwi serves.

Kiwi, I think you did an admirable job on a ridiculous case. You have all the kudos from me.

Hmm...thought I was and have been acting as such. Thought I was a citizen that is.

Just for the record, if I am just a 'member' without my admin mask, members are allowed to post in the public gallery and in this area. Whether I am a citizen, former citizen, or member I have posted in no area where my non-admin mask would not have allowed me to do so if I weren't an admin. This appears to be a misconception to some.

EDIT: It would appear that I am now a former citizen -

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8124436&t=6917173

which would seem to imply that until this post I was a citizen. Again, i've posted in areas where mere members can post so the bruhaha over me posting seems a bit frivolous. For once, it would be nice to focus on the content and not the package where the comments are coming from.

Members may be able to post, but they have no business criticizing the performance of a government official on the grounds that that official is responsible to the public when they're not members of the public to which that official is responsible.

It's particularly ridiculous given that you walked away from your responsibilities during the Grosse trial without so much as a by-your-leave, leaving it to Kiwi to slog through - something which he did admirably, and now have the gall to attack his dedication.

Package matters as much as content, as it informs credibility. You have about as much credibility when criticizing Kiwi's performance as AG as Durk would have if he criticized someone for couping a GCR.

SillyString:

Members may be able to post, but they have no business criticizing the performance of a government official on the grounds that that official is responsible to the public when they're not members of the public to which that official is responsible.

It's particularly ridiculous given that you walked away from your responsibilities during the Grosse trial without so much as a by-your-leave, leaving it to Kiwi to slog through - something which he did admirably, and now have the gall to attack his dedication.

Package matters as much as content, as it informs credibility. You have about as much credibility when criticizing Kiwi's performance as AG as Durk would have if he criticized someone for couping a GCR.

Click to expand...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

SillyString:

Kiwi, I think you did an admirable job on a ridiculous case. You have all the kudos from me.

Click to expand...

Thank you - you were the "one"

Kiwi:

Eluvatar:

In case I haven't made this clear elsewhere, I respect the work you've put into TNP v Grosse and I admire your dedication.

Obviously, as defense counsel, I had some issues with some of your arguments / tactics, but that's to be expected

I am very grateful however that that case is now done with, properly, and we can all move on to better things.

Click to expand...

Haha thanks Elu. I think I pointed out already how impressed I was with how you did considering time restraints etc as well

Click to expand...

I do have to say, Kiwi, you did an excellent job (as did Elu) in this case considering what you had to work with.

It's good to see people (finally) working hard to get court cases dealt with.

SillyString:

Members may be able to post, but they have no business criticizing the performance of a government official on the grounds that that official is responsible to the public when they're not members of the public to which that official is responsible.

It's particularly ridiculous given that you walked away from your responsibilities during the Grosse trial without so much as a by-your-leave, leaving it to Kiwi to slog through - something which he did admirably, and now have the gall to attack his dedication.

Package matters as much as content, as it informs credibility. You have about as much credibility when criticizing Kiwi's performance as AG as Durk would have if he criticized someone for couping a GCR.

Click to expand...

I'm criticizing his actions in deciding to be COE's defense attorney. I think he did a fine job in the TNP v Grosse.


And please reread the actual thread, i wish you had been this vociferous when prior AG's left without so much as a,as you put it a "by your leave". I did in fact make mention of leaving.

So i suppose that means the prior AGs who didn't have no right to make statements about the process according to you. Duly noted.

And having debunked in your assertion that I have no authority to post here as a member, I'll leave you to continue to quibble over the packaging versus the contents.

You haven't debunked a thing. You are gleefully no longer a contributing citizen of TNP, and at the same time eager to detract from the efforts of people who are. While your masking allows you to post, you have no place doing so.

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that what you are doing is somehow comparable to what previous AGs have done. It is not.

You are not alone in abandoning your office in the middle of the term, without a word - and if you look very carefully, you will see that I have had very little to say about this, much as I have had very little to say about it coming from previous AGs. RL happens, things come up, and it is not necessary, in my opinion, to raise a stink simply because someone has disappeared.

Where you differ, however, is that previous AGs who were derelict in the execution of their duties have not had the sheer gall to return and criticize their immediate replacements - had any of them done so, I would be exactly as critical as I am of your involvement here. This is not a case of returning to criticize several months or years down the line, or a case of serving a full and active term and being displeased with one's replacement. You have no stake in the system, or in improving it - you have eagerly given up any stake you once had. This is simply criticism for the sake of criticism.

Silly, are you saying Abbey wasn't forced by RL to derelict her duties, or that she doesn't criticize subsequent office holders?

Madhousemike CTE'd in TNP without legally renouncing citizenship therefore Punk is in fact a ^edit:former citizen in the eyes of the law, and therefore categorically still has the right to comment on public affairs.

Silly, are you saying Abbey wasn't forced by RL to derelict her duties, or that she doesn't criticize subsequent office holders?

Click to expand...

When exactly did Abbey serve as AG? I do not recall this occurring, but my memory might be faulty.

I also refer you to the antepenultimate sentence of my previous post.

Madhousemike CTE'd in TNP without legally renouncing citizenship therefore Punk is in fact a ^edit:former citizen in the eyes of the law, and therefore categorically still has the right to comment on public affairs.

Click to expand...

This is not about the rights which his masking gives him, or the vague and undefined RL "right" to speech which is not prohibited by law.

I have the right to move a nation to Osiris and start whining on the RMB about how the OFO government is shaping itself, or about the performance of Venico as delegate, or about the color masking given to citizens, or anything else I please, so long as such speech does not violate the NS terms of use. But given that I gleefully resigned my positions in Osiris and departed it without a glance behind me, and that I have opted not to return and involve myself in the region, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to do so - it would be criticism for the sake of criticism, rather than criticism accompanying genuine effort to make improvements. And that is exactly what Punk is doing here.

Edit: Stray quote tags.

I think Osiris would welcome your comments, whether you are involving yourself or not.

Abbey was AG for a few months following the resignation of Grosseschnauzer in Fall 2012. Punk Daddy took over from her, and prosecuted many cases. A notable feature of Punk Daddy's first Attorneyship General was appointing untested assistants. He did not duck the blame for his failures in office.

While your masking allows you to post, you have no place doing so.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. TNP is a remarkably tolerant region, and we welcome people posting where their mask permits them posting. Telling people they have no place posting where their mask allows them to post is more fitting in more totalitarian regimes than TNP. Perhaps you have us confused with somewhere else?

Not at all, flem - there is a place everywhere for propriety, and decency, and not jumping down someone's throat when one's own actions directly contributed to that which is being criticized.

He chooses to butt in - and I choose to criticize him for doing so inappropriately. My comments are no more intolerant than his are, and he is not immune from his words being reacted to.

And neither are you my friend.

Trust me Silly - you will not dictate where I post or where I do not post. Trust me on that one.

If you feel I should not have opinions and should not say anything, feel free to ignore my comments.

SillyString:

Not at all, flem - there is a place everywhere for propriety, and decency, and not jumping down someone's throat when one's own actions directly contributed to that which is being criticized.

He chooses to butt in - and I choose to criticize him for doing so inappropriately. My comments are no more intolerant than his are, and he is not immune from his words being reacted to.

Click to expand...

I think most people objectively reading this thread will be going pot ......kettle ..... About now.

But perhaps we ought to get back on topic? Apologies, mr A.G?

I want to be the kettle in this analogy.

punk d:

And neither are you my friend.

Trust me Silly - you will not dictate where I post or where I do not post. Trust me on that one.

Click to expand...

Was that supposed to scare me?

flemingovia:

I think most people objectively reading this thread will be going pot ......kettle ..... About now.

Click to expand...

People objectively reading this thread are free to think what they like - though your pot/kettle complaint would have far more weight if the actions which I am criticizing came about as a direct result of my own negligence in performing my duties as deputy speaker. By all means, feel free to establish that chain of events.

I don't do intimidation Silly, though given your history in Osiris it's not a bad tactic against you.

No - i'm telling you like it is. You will not dictate where and what I post.

You really have no understanding of the situation in Osiris - but I take note of your eagerness to stifle criticism of your behavior.

I welcome criticism of my behavior. Unfortunately, you stifled criticism of the AG's behavior in this thread by criticizing my behavior.

Some might call that deflection.