Request for Review: Court Ruling 1.1: Attorney General Discretion

Cormac:
I'm fairly sure that the rules of the Court, which are there to protect the integrity of the Court as an institution, are more important than your personal integrity or ego, Grosse.
Click to expand...
But Cormac, the integrity of the Court is at risk by the pattern of behavior of the other two remaining justices, and the only way to clear the air long term is for that thread to be released.
 
I'm somewhat more concerned that one Justice contradicted the Chief Justice publicly and accused them of saying one thing in private and another in public.

Knowing the Chief Justice as I do, that doesn't happen. If Severisen says one thing, he means one thing. I'm even more concerned because the Justice who issued that review had a conflict of interest and didn't recuse themselves, as would have been appropriate.

Said Justice then publicly resigned when others disagreed with the interpretation of events. That is a threat to the integrity of this Court.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Hmmm, I am not the one who brought it into open chambers.
Click to expand...
You were, though. You posted a ruling that claimed support from the other justices that apparently does not have their support.

I have never known Severisen to be two-faced, duplicitous, sneaky, underhanded, conniving, or any other adjective which would be necessary for him to, as you are claiming, support the ruling in private and oppose it in public. Sev has always said exactly what he means and remains consistent in that across audiences.

Whether you misunderstood his and Kialga's posts or willfully misrepresented them is neither here nor there. I don't think Sev did anything wrong in clarifying for the public - who had been subjected to the ruling - that it did not reflect the views of the Court.
 
This is generally the problem TNP has with secret threads the RA isn't allowed to see, people like to abuse this secrecy for their own personal gain or agenda. Clearly reform is needed in all departments, including the Courts.
 
Blue Wolf II:
This is generally the problem TNP has with secret threads the RA isn't allowed to see, people like to abuse this secrecy for their own personal gain or agenda. Clearly reform is needed in all departments, including the Courts.
Click to expand...
I do not think you can take this specific situation and extrapolate a general problem from it. Grosse is... pretty unique.
 
My apologies for bringing this matter to the public side of the court. I know it's bordering (Ok, well beyond) ludacrous at this point, but we'll be appointing a THO and get this matter settled once and for all.
 
flemingovia:
I do not think you can take this specific situation and extrapolate a general problem from it. Grosse is... pretty unique.
Click to expand...
Oh, this case is far from the first time something like this has occurred, it is only the most recent abuse.
 
With the resignation of Justice Grosseschnauzer, the court hereby appoints Cormac as a Temporary Hearing Officer for this Request for Review.
 
court-seal.png

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Request for Review filed by Silly String on behalf of the Attorney General on the Court's Ruling issued on September 15, 2012

Opinion drafted by Chief Justice Severisen, joined by Justice Kialga and THO Cormac
​

The Court took into consideration the Request for Review filed here by Silly String.

The Court took into consideration the following:

A. Bill of Rights, Clause 9

B. Legal Code, Section 6.7, Clauses 37

C. Legal Code, Section 6.7, Clauses 38 to 45

D. Court Rules, Chapter 2

E. Court Rules, Chapter 4



The Court finds the following:


1. Does the petitioner have "standing" to bring this request for review?

The petitioner bases their right to bring this request for review on the language contained in Clause 37 of Section 6.7 of the Legal Code. ("The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.").

Accordingly, the court holds that the petitioner has standing to bring this request for review.


2. Should Opinion 1 be modified with strikethrough tags as it has been superseded by the current Legal Code Chapter 6, Section 7?

It seems clear to the court that Opinion 1 was written when the law required the Attorney General's Office to bring all cases to trial. The current law is clear in that, in clause 38 of Chapter 6, Section 7 of the Legal Code, "The Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of any criminal case requested." This allows for the Office of AG to decide not to prosecute. As such Opinion 1 is contrary to, and superseded by, the current Legal Code.

The Court, therefore, opines the following:


Opinion Number 1, In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Tim on the Attorney General Refusing to bring Trials to the Court, is hereby modified with strikethrough tags, acknowledging its obsolescence while preserving it for historical purposes. As such, the Court's Ruling issued on September 15, 2012 no longer has the force of law.
 
Blue Wolf II:
So, now that a ruling has been rendered, can the court record regarding this decision now be released?
Click to expand...
No.

Might I suggest reading the very clear and very specific Adopted Court Rules on the matter?
 
I would like to thank to Court for coming to a clear, concise, and swift (considering the turnaround after the resignation only) ruling.

As the AG for The North Pacific, I would like to remind the Court that airing its dirty laundry in public in this fashion, along with the incredible delay in the initial ruling, could be seen (and indeed has been seen) by some as grounds for an indictment of Gross Misconduct. Since the apparent instigator has resigned, hopefully there will not be further issues.
 
SillyString:
Blue Wolf II:
So, now that a ruling has been rendered, can the court record regarding this decision now be released?
Click to expand...
No.

Might I suggest reading the very clear and very specific Adopted Court Rules on the matter?
Click to expand...
Well, it does say:

3. Private Court records which are younger than six months but predate the sitting Court may be requested by an RA member and released if the Court finds a compelling benefit to their publication.
Click to expand...

Technically, with Gross' resignation and Cormac being a THO, the Court that made the decision is no longer the sitting Court, and therefore this ruling will predate the sitting Court once election have been held to fill the empty space.

I believe there would be a compelling benefit to the publication of the last Court's records on this matter.
 
That's an incorrect reading, actually, which can be seen from the following clause (bolding mine):
4. Private Court records from within the term of the sitting Court will not be released.
Click to expand...

So, you know, wait a month and try asking again?
 
Blue Wolf II:
This is generally the problem TNP has with secret threads the RA isn't allowed to see, people like to abuse this secrecy for their own personal gain or agenda. Clearly reform is needed in all departments, including the Courts.
Click to expand...
Silence! The Cheese Illuminati will open a folder on you for such statements!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top