ShadowSlayer (Midir on Discord) for Attorney General

Midir [Mondari]

Midir [Mondari]

TNPer
I am running for Attorney General because I believe we have had enough terms where Darcania is AG, having the same AG over and over again doesn't provide for growth of the region.

We have to completely dominate our enemies in every way possible and having an insider, Status Quo person running for AG won't help us.

Vote Midir
Vote for change
 
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
 
1) What experience do you have in this form of government?

2) What sets you apart from other candidates?
 
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
 
Mystery Player:
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
Click to expand...
Id never run one of those

To answer the question

YES, I WILL MERGE THE AG WITH THE MOD, WE WILL RUN THE GOVERNMENT WOTH A STRATEGY OF WAR AND POWER

EXPAND THE MOD'S POWER

MAKE THEM THE MOST POWERFUL MINISTRY EVER SEEN
 
Midir:
Mystery Player:
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
Click to expand...
Id never run one of those

To answer the question

YES, I WILL MERGE THE AG WITH THE MOD, WE WILL RUN THE GOVERNMENT WOTH A STRATEGY OF WAR AND POWER

EXPAND THE MOD'S POWER

MAKE THEM THE MOST POWERFUL MINISTRY EVER SEEN
Click to expand...
yes


thats a good idea
 
Skittleyflakes:
Midir:
Mystery Player:
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
Click to expand...
Id never run one of those

To answer the question

YES, I WILL MERGE THE AG WITH THE MOD, WE WILL RUN THE GOVERNMENT WOTH A STRATEGY OF WAR AND POWER

EXPAND THE MOD'S POWER

MAKE THEM THE MOST POWERFUL MINISTRY EVER SEEN
Click to expand...
yes


thats a good idea
Click to expand...
Of course it is, i have a good brain
 
Midir:
Skittleyflakes:
Midir:
Mystery Player:
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
Click to expand...
Id never run one of those

To answer the question

YES, I WILL MERGE THE AG WITH THE MOD, WE WILL RUN THE GOVERNMENT WOTH A STRATEGY OF WAR AND POWER

EXPAND THE MOD'S POWER

MAKE THEM THE MOST POWERFUL MINISTRY EVER SEEN
Click to expand...
yes


thats a good idea
Click to expand...
Of course it is, i have a good brain
Click to expand...
yes you do. i endorse this campaign
 
Skittleyflakes:
Midir:
Skittleyflakes:
Midir:
Mystery Player:
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
Click to expand...
Id never run one of those

To answer the question

YES, I WILL MERGE THE AG WITH THE MOD, WE WILL RUN THE GOVERNMENT WOTH A STRATEGY OF WAR AND POWER

EXPAND THE MOD'S POWER

MAKE THEM THE MOST POWERFUL MINISTRY EVER SEEN
Click to expand...
yes


thats a good idea
Click to expand...
Of course it is, i have a good brain
Click to expand...
yes you do. i endorse this campaign
Click to expand...
I appriciate the vote citizen
 
Midir:
Skittleyflakes:
Midir:
Skittleyflakes:
Midir:
Mystery Player:
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
Click to expand...
Id never run one of those

To answer the question

YES, I WILL MERGE THE AG WITH THE MOD, WE WILL RUN THE GOVERNMENT WOTH A STRATEGY OF WAR AND POWER

EXPAND THE MOD'S POWER

MAKE THEM THE MOST POWERFUL MINISTRY EVER SEEN
Click to expand...
yes


thats a good idea
Click to expand...
Of course it is, i have a good brain
Click to expand...
yes you do. i endorse this campaign
Click to expand...
I appriciate the vote citizen
Click to expand...
yes
 
Midir:
Mystery Player:
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
Click to expand...
Id never run one of those

To answer the question

YES, I WILL MERGE THE AG WITH THE MOD, WE WILL RUN THE GOVERNMENT WOTH A STRATEGY OF WAR AND POWER

EXPAND THE MOD'S POWER

MAKE THEM THE MOST POWERFUL MINISTRY EVER SEEN
Click to expand...
Though I don't see this in anyway as a serious campaign but i suppose i'll ask this question anyway:


Exactly how would you go about merging the AG and the MoD into one entity?
 
Zeek:
Midir:
Mystery Player:
Bootsie:
Dominate our enemies? Are you merging the Attorney General with the Ministry of Defense?

Also, since apparently we’re speaking different languages here, why the ad hominem attacks against your opponent and not why you should be AG?
Click to expand...
I think it's a joke campaign...
Click to expand...
Id never run one of those

To answer the question

YES, I WILL MERGE THE AG WITH THE MOD, WE WILL RUN THE GOVERNMENT WOTH A STRATEGY OF WAR AND POWER

EXPAND THE MOD'S POWER

MAKE THEM THE MOST POWERFUL MINISTRY EVER SEEN
Click to expand...
Though I don't see this in anyway as a serious campaign but i suppose i'll ask this question anyway:


Exactly how would you go about merging the AG and the MoD into one entity?
Click to expand...
Less of a merger and more of transferring power from the AG into the MoD

Transfer the power from the AG into the MoD and make a super strong position that would be able to sway laws and rulings in TNP
 
Pallaith:
But...why?
Click to expand...
To make it more streamlined, think about it. Less roles means an easier process, it could increase artificial corruption but that wouldnt be a problem, you nust have to bring in experienced "politicians" to run the AG/MOD
 
I have a number of questions.

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?

In what circumstances is it appropriate for the Attorney General to utilise their general standing in relation to requests for review to bring a matter to the Court? Are there different considerations in relation to matters where individual residents, or classes of them, are likely to be considered to be affected parties as compared to matters where it is likely that no individual or class could be so considered?

The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate, a Minister, or an Election Commissioner?
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
I have a number of questions.

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?

In what circumstances is it appropriate for the Attorney General to utilise their general standing in relation to requests for review to bring a matter to the Court? Are there different considerations in relation to matters where individual residents, or classes of them, are likely to be considered to be affected parties as compared to matters where it is likely that no individual or class could be so considered?

The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate, a Minister, or an Election Commissioner?
Click to expand...
To answer your questions

If it is against the constitutions and/or the already established laws to do anything i wouldnt be able to act. Or if i believe the case is immoral and placed to purposely detain or prosecute a defendant then I would refuse to prosecute them.

I believe it is appropriate for me (if I become the AG) TO utilize my standing with the court if I believe someone and or some group is infringing on the laws of TNP or her constitution. Considering that, if someone is there would be very little exception in my eyes (unless someone is using what loopholes there are to do something vicious or nasty to another citizen or resident).

If I was commissioned by any authority (Delegate, VD, Speaker, anyone) to enforce something unlawful then I would tell them I can't enforce that law and bring the fact that they are trying to put a law in place that's unlawful to the courts to bring them up to speed on the situation.

I hope these answered your questions Zyvet.
 
Thank you for your answers, I have further follow-up questions.

Midir:
Zyvetskistaahn:
In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?
Click to expand...
If it is against the constitutions and/or the already established laws to do anything i wouldnt be able to act. Or if i believe the case is immoral and placed to purposely detain or prosecute a defendant then I would refuse to prosecute them.
Click to expand...
In what ways might the Constitution or law prevent you from acting in relation to a prosecution and why?

In what circumstances might a case be immoral? Why is it the place of the Attorney General to make moral judgements about the propriety of a case?

What do you mean by "purposely detain or prosecute", surely all cases are intended to prosecute a defendant?

Midir:
Zyvetskistaahn:
In what circumstances is it appropriate for the Attorney General to utilise their general standing in relation to requests for review to bring a matter to the Court? Are there different considerations in relation to matters where individual residents, or classes of them, are likely to be considered to be affected parties as compared to matters where it is likely that no individual or class could be so considered?
Click to expand...
I believe it is appropriate for me (if I become the AG) TO utilize my standing with the court if I believe someone and or some group is infringing on the laws of TNP or her constitution. Considering that, if someone is there would be very little exception in my eyes (unless someone is using what loopholes there are to do something vicious or nasty to another citizen or resident).
Click to expand...
So, am I correct in understanding that, in your view, any violation of the law could be brought before the Court by means of a request for review ought to be brought by the Attorney General, if the Attorney General has the opportunity to bring such a request?

Midir:
Zyvetskistaahn:
The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate, a Minister, or an Election Commissioner?
Click to expand...
If I was commissioned by any authority (Delegate, VD, Speaker, anyone) to enforce something unlawful then I would tell them I can't enforce that law and bring the fact that they are trying to put a law in place that's unlawful to the courts to bring them up to speed on the situation.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I may have been unclear. My question was not aimed at the executive official instructing you to do enforce a law, rather, it was aimed at a situation where the official was considering doing some act, then asked your advice (which constitutionally you must give), and then, contrary to your advice that the act was unlawful, proceeded to do the act anyway. What steps might you take in such a situation and would there be different steps needed depending on the official you had advised? Particularly, you might think about requests for review or criminal proceedings, whether the law might require you to act in a different way than if you had not been involved in giving advice, and whether there are other measures which you might need to take outside of strict legal structures.
 
No problem.

When I say the constitution stopping me I meant that of the person found a loophole or didn't break a law in the first place I wouldn't be able to do anything (however small that chance may be).

I can't say that I have the authority to dismiss a case based off me thinking it's immoral but if it pertains to religion or political beliefs, I believe (unless they break a law) that silencing or detaining them is immoral. Or in the case that it infringes on a citizen's civil rights.

When I say "purposely detain or prosecute I'm talking about court justices (I don't think it will happen) bringing someone to court because they don't like, or even hate the beliefs of a citizen despite them not breaking a law.
Granted, I believe with the current the justices the changes of that happening is almost zero but I'm just covering bases.

Yes, I believe that any authority figure or citizen that breaks the law has to have that case brought to the court to have it reviewed and if it's a high ranking figure and the issue is severe enough they have a sentence issued to them.

I believe that if a executive official (knowing it's unconstitutional) be issued a sentence relating to the severity of their crime, if it breaks the foundations of TNP's constitution then they must be issued a sentence that would show them that breaking the laws of the constitution will not be tolerated and that the courts will harshly punish those knowingly and willingly breaking those laws.
Of course me advising them that it is illegal and unconstitutional to do so would bring them into the "light" and they'd know it is illegal AND they still do it then they should be punished for doing so.
 
Thank you for your answers, I have some more follow-ups.
Midir:
Yes, I believe that any authority figure or citizen that breaks the law has to have that case brought to the court to have it reviewed and if it's a high ranking figure and the issue is severe enough they have a sentence issued to them.
Click to expand...
I think that there may be a misunderstanding here, with my question dealing with the inherent standing of the Attorney General, I am focused solely on the issue of request for review, which do not result in criminal sentences unless they are followed up by a criminal trial which determines guilt of some crime. With that in mind, is your answer the same: that any unlawful act ought to be brought before the Court by the Attorney General through a request for review?

Midir:
I believe that if a executive official (knowing it's unconstitutional) be issued a sentence relating to the severity of their crime, if it breaks the foundations of TNP's constitution then they must be issued a sentence that would show them that breaking the laws of the constitution will not be tolerated and that the courts will harshly punish those knowingly and willingly breaking those laws.
Of course me advising them that it is illegal and unconstitutional to do so would bring them into the "light" and they'd know it is illegal AND they still do it then they should be punished for doing so.
Click to expand...
Again, I think there may be a misunderstanding between us here. I'm not so much aimed at what the final outcome ought to be, rather I am aimed at what steps you would need to take as Attorney General and what issues might arise depending on what steps you take. With that in mind, what would you do were an executive official to do something which you had privately advised them was unlawful?
 
Yes, I believe that an unlawful act should be brought up to the court through a request for review if they continue what they're doing after being issued a warning.

If a official continues doing the unlawful act after being told and warned that continuing would be unlawful I would issue a request for review and have the court issue a appropriate punishment.
 
Thank you for your answers, I have yet further follow-ups
Midir:
Yes, I believe that an unlawful act should be brought up to the court through a request for review if they continue what they're doing after being issued a warning.

If a official continues doing the unlawful act after being told and warned that continuing would be unlawful I would issue a request for review and have the court issue a appropriate punishment.
Click to expand...

What difficulties might arise in seeking a judicial review and, if necessary criminal punishment? Are there any parts of the Legal Code which might be particularly relevant? Could you use the advise you had given the official to support a criminal trial?
 
I don't believe that if someone of high standings breaks a law knowingly and willingly that there would be a problem in getting a review done so I don't think that other than the part of the legal code that they broke, that other parts would be necessary to bring in. Of course there are so many factors it requires citing different parts of the legal code on a case by case basis.

Yes, I do. I think that if they wanted to do something particularly bad, like try to dismantle other positions willingly then me telling them that would be unconstitutional would have to be brought in and they would have commited (let's say the VD tries to take down the Delegate when the Delegate hasn't broke any laws) then they would be reviewed and [probably] sentenced for it.
 
Show me the opening paragraph of a legal brief you might submit to the court.

Name a previous case you feel was wrongly decided and explain how you would have argued it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top